v 


$B    Mflfl    EDS 


%  f ' 


X       Vr- 


V- 


n 


^•x%'-^.'-' 


.^^^ 


Division 

Range 

Shelf 

Received       ^/oaJ^J'^^    1 S7^^ 


Libiunj. 


TWO 


LETTERS 


TO 


THE  REVEREND  MOSES  STUART; 


ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF 


RELIGIOUS    LIBERTY. 


By  BERNARD  WHITMAN. 


H' 


Vf-nsi^^- 


Librarij.  j) 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED    BY    GRAY    AND    BOWEN, 


1830. 


DISTRICT   OF  MASSACHUSETTS to  wit: 

Be  it  remembered,  that  on  the  ninth  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1830,  in  the 
fifty-fifth  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Gray  and 
Bowen,  of  the  said  District,  have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the 
right  whereof  they  claim  as  proprietors,  in  the  words  followingj,  to  wit : 

••  Two  Letters  to  the  Reverend  Moses  Stuart ;  on  the  Subject  of  Religious 
Liberty.    By  Bernard  Whitman." 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled,  "An 
Act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts, 
and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies  during  the  times  therein 
mentioned";  and  also  to  an  act  entitled,  "  An  Act  supplementaiy  toai  Act  entitled 
*  An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts, 
and  books  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times 
therein  mentioned  ' ;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing, 
engraving,  and  etching  historical  and  other  prints." 

JNO.  W.  DAVIS, 
Clerk  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts, 


/y^7/ 


CAMBRIDGE  : 
E.    W.    MCTCALF    AND   COMPANY. 


y 


1    Library. 


I, 


^l  Car.forr.ii    , .; 


^ 


// 


LETTER   I, 


Reverend  Sir, 
In  your  Letter  on  Religious  Liberty,  you  accuse  Dr.  Channing* 
of  publishing  certain  charges  against  orthodox  Christians.  You  quote 
several  passages  from  his  writings  to  substantiate  your  accusation. 
You  then  bring  together  the  substance  of  his  charges  in  the  following 
sentences.  "  You  have  charged  the  orthodox  with  a  settled,  steadfast, 
unrelenting  purpose  to  suppress  all  free  inquiry  respecting  matters  of 
religion,  to  cover  with  reproach  those  who  may  differ  from  themselves, 
to  drown  the  free  expression  of  opinion  by  denunciations  of  heresy,  and 
to  strike  terror  into  the  multitude  by  joint  and  perpetual  menace.  In 
addition  to  all  this,  you  represent  them  as  saying  ;  —  Since  argument 
is  insufficient  to  produce  uniformity  of  opinion,  recourse  must  be  had  to 
more  powerful  instruments  of  conviction,  to  Ecclesiastical  Courts.^'* 
Having  given  this  summary,  you  utter  the  following  positive  and 
solemn  declarations.  "  /  do  know  that  the  accvsations  which  you  stand 
pledged  to  support  are  not  true.  I  aver  that  they  are  not,  before  heaven 
and  earth." 

Now,  my  dear  Sir,  permit  me  also  to  express  my  honest  convictions  on 
this  question.  For  I  presume  you  will  admit,  that  I  have  an  equal  right 
with  yourself,  to  publish  Letters  on  Religious  Liberty ;  and  an  equal 
right,  with  any  orthodox  Christian,  to  utter  solemn  asseverations. 
I  therefore  aver,  before  heaven  and  earth,  that  I  firmly  believe  the 
above  charges  to  be  substantially  correct,  when  applied  to  the  leaders  of 
the  orthodox  denomination  in  our  country,  against  whom  they  were 
specially  directed.  And  to  give  you  and  the  public  the  honest  reasons 
for  this  belief,  is  the  design  and  object  of  the  present  publication. 

I  address  you  as  the  head  of  the  orthodox  party,  because  you  seem  to 
me  to  have  assumed  that  character  in  your  Letter  to  Dr.  Channing. 
These  are  your  own  words.  "  All,  against  whom  I  suppose  the 
denunciations  in  your  works  are  specially  directed,  I  have  the  pleasure 
of  being  more  or  less  acquainted  with  ;  and  I  know  well  their  feelings 
and  views."     I  am  sure  no  other  orthodox  divine  can  justly  advance  an 


4  LETTER  I. 

equal  claim  to  preeminence.  I  shall  therefore  say  you,  when  I  refer  to 
the  proceedings  of  your  aggrieved  brethren.  As  you  have  spoken  freely 
concerning  unitarians,  you  will  not  object  to  my  using  great  plainness 
of  speech  in  relation  to  the  measures  of  the  orthodox.  I  shall  faithfully 
endeavour,  not  to  please  unitarians  or  trinitarians,  liberal  or  orthodox ; 
but  to  speak  boldly  what  I  honestly  believe  to  be  the  truth,  and  the  exact 
tnith.  I  do  not  write  as  a  unitarian,  or  an  advocate  for  unitarianism  ; 
but  as  a  Christian,  and  an  advocate  for  Christian  freedom. 

That  I  may  not  be  misunderstood,  I  will  give  a  definite  statement  of 
the  proposition  which  I  shall  endeavour  to  demonstrate.  It  may  be 
expressed  in  the  following  terms.     The  measures  attempted  and 

ADOPTED  BY  THE  LEADERS  OF  THE  ORTHODOX  DENOMINATION  IN  OUR 
COUNTRY,  FOR  THE  PRESERVATION  AND  PROPAGATION  OF  THEIR 
PECULIAR  VIEWS  OF  RELIGION,.  ARE  SUBVERSIVE  OF  FREE  INQUIRY, 
RELIGIOUS    LIBERTY,    AND     THE     PRINCIPLES     OF     CONGREGATIONALISM. 

By  free  inquiry,  I  mean,  that  every  man  may  investigate  the  subjects  of 
religion,  without  any  fear  of  evil  consequences  from  human  power  or 
persecution.  By  religotis  liberty,  I  mean,  that  every  man  may  believe 
and  publish  and  propagate,  in  a  Christian  manner,  his  honest  religious 
opinions,  without  any  fear  of  human  authority  or  punishment.  By  tfu 
principles  of  contrregationalism,  I  mean,  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures, 
the  right  of  private  judgment,  the  advancement  of  the  Reformation,  the 
independency  and  equality  of  congregational  churches.  A  plain  state- 
ment of  facts  will  now  be  given  in  proof  of  my  proposition. 

I.  Use  made  of  human  creeds. 

In  the  first  place,  I  invite  your  attention  to  the  use  made  of  human 
creeds  by  the  orthodox  denomination.  I  think  the  facts  I  shall  adduce 
under  this  head  will  prove  the  two  following  and  distinct  propositions. 
First,  that  the  orthodox  denomination  make  a  human  creed,  and  not  the 
Bible,  their  standard  of  religious  truth.  And,  secondly,  that  the  use  made 
of  human  creeds  by  the  orthodox  denomination  is  subversive  of  free 
inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism.  My 
limits  will  permit  me  to  notice  but  six  different  classes  of  facts  under 
this  general  division. 

I.  Thtolofrical Seminaries.  First.  Look  at  the  use  made  of  a  human 
creed  in  orthodox  theological  seminaries.  Take  the  institution  at 
Andover  as  a  fair  illustration.  Before  you  could  be  admitted  into  the 
office  of  Professor,  you  were  obliged  to  express  your  hearty  belief  in  all 
the  statements  of  the  following  human  creed. 

"  I  believe  that  tliere  is  one  and  but  one  living  and  true  God  ;  that  the 
word  of  God,  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
is  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  that  agreeably  to  those 
Scriptures,  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  his  being, 
wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  trutli ;  that  in  the  Godhead 
are  three per*<m»,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  tliese 


LETTER  I.  6 

Three  are  One  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory  ; 
that  God  created  man  after  his  own  image,  in  knowledge,  righteous- 
ness, and  holiness ;  that  the  glory  of  God  is  man's  chief  end,  and  the 
enjoyment  of  God  his  supreme  happiness ;  that  this  enjoyment  is 
derived  solely  from  conformity  of  heart  to  the  moral  character  and 
will  of  God  ;  that  Adam,  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  the 
human  race,  was  placed  in  a  state  of  probation,  and  that  in  conse- 
quence of  his  disobedience  all  his  descendants  were  constituted  sin- 
ners ;  that  by  nature  every  man  is  personally  depraved,  destitute  of 
holiness,  unlike  and  opposed  to  God,  and  that  previously  to  the  renew- 
ing agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit  all  his  moral  actions  are  adverse  to  the 
character  and  glory  of  God  ;  that,  being  morally  incapable  of  recover- 
ing the  image  of  his  Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is 
justly  exposed  to  eternal  damnation ;  so  that,  except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  that  God,  of  his  mere 
good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity,  elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  and 
that  he  entered  into  a  covenant  of  grace  to  deliver  them  out  of  this 
state  of  sin  and  misery  by  a  Redeemer;  that  the  only  Redeemer  of  the 
elect  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  for  this  purpose  became  man,  and 
continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person 
for  ever ;  that  Christ,  as  our  Redeemer,  executeth  the  office  of  a  Pro- 
phet, Priest,  and  King  ;  that  agreeably  to  the  covenant  of  redemption, 
the  Son  of  God,  and  he  alone,  by  his  suffering  and  death,  has  made 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men  ;  that  repentance,  faith,  and  holii^ess 
are  the  personal  requisites  in  the  gospel  scheme  of  salvation ;  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's  justification ; 
that  this  righteousness  is  received  through  faith ;  and  that  this  faith 
is  the  gift  of  God  ;  so  that  our  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace  ;  that  no 
means  whatever  can  change  the  heart  of  a  sinner,  and  make  it  holy  ; 
that  regeneration  and  sanctification  are  effects  of  the  creating  and 
renewing  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that  supreme  love  to  God 
constitutes  the  essential  difference  between  saints  and  sinners ;  that, 
by  convincing  us  of  our  sin  and  misery,  enlightening  our  minds,  work- 
ing faith  in  us,  and  renewing  our  wills,  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  us  par- 
takers of  the  benefits  of  redemption ;  and  that  the  ordinary  means, 
by  which  these  benefits  are  communicated  to  us,  are  the  word,  sacra- 
ments, and  prayer ;  that  repentance  unto  life,  faith  to  feed  upon  Christ, 
love  to  God,  and  new  obedience,  are  the  appropriate  qualifications  for 
the  Lord's  supper ;  and  that  a  Christian  church  ought  to  admit  no 
person  to  its  holy  communion,  before  he  exhibit  credible  evidence  of 
his  godly  sincerity  ;  that  perseverance  in  holiness  is  the  only  method 
of  making  our  calling  and  election  sure ;  and  that  the  final  perseve- 
rance of  saints,  though  it  is  the  effect  of  the  special  operation  of  God 
on  their  hearts,  necessarily  implies  their  own  watchful  diligence  ;  that 
they,  who  are  effectually  called,  do  in  this  life  partake  of  justification, 


6  LETTER  I. 

adoption,  and  sanctification,  and  tlie  several  benefits,  which  do  either 
accompany  or  flow  from  them  ;  that  the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their 
death  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory ; 
that  their  bodies,  being  still  united  to  Christ,  will  at  the  resurrection 
be  raised  up  to  glory,  and  that  the  saints  will  be  made  perfectly 
blessed  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  God  to  all  eternity  ;  but  that  the 
wicked  will  awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  and,  with  devils, 
be  plunged  into  the  lake  that  bumeth  ivith  Jire  and  brimstone  for  ever  and 
ev^r.  I  moreover  believe  that  God,  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own 
will,  and  for  his  own  glory,  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to 
pass,  and  that  all  beings,  actions,  and  events,  both  in  the  natural  and 
moral  world,  are  under  his  providential  direction ;  that  God's  decrees 
perfectly  consist  with  human  liberty,  God's  universal  agency  with 
the  agency  of  man,  and  man's  dependence  with  his  accountability  ; 
that  man  has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all  that  God 
requires  of  him  ;  so  that  nothing,  but  the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness, 
prevents  his  salvation  ;  that  it  is  the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good 
out  of  evil,  and  that  he  will  cause  the  wrath  and  rage  of  wicked  men 
and  devils  to  praise  him  ;  and  that  all  the  evil,  which  has  existed,  and 
which  will  for  ever  exist  in  the  moral  system,  will  eventually  be  made 
to  promote  a  most  important  purpose  under  the  wise  and  perfect 
administration  of  that  Almighty  Being,  who  will  cause  all  things  to 
work  for  his  own  glory,  and  thus  fulfil  all  his  pleasure." 

Now,  Sir,  you  will  acknowledge,  that  this  creed  was  manufactured  by 
frail,  fallible,  prejudiced  mortals.  You  will  also  admit,  that  scarcely  an 
article  of  the  whole  can  be  expressed  in  Scriptural  language.  You 
will  likewise  grant,  that  many  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  Christians 
have  rejected  the  peculiarities  of  this  human  formulary  as  unchristian. 
Should  a  prayerful  perusal  of  the  sacred  writings  lead  you  to  an  open 
denial  of  the  truth  of  any  one  of  these  articles,  you  must  lose  your 
situation  as  Professor.  Now  which  is  made  your  standard  of  religious 
truth,  as  a  Professor,  this  human  creed,  or  the  Bible  ?  The  creed, 
surely.  For  should  you  refuse  to  profess  your  belief  in  all  its  state- 
ments, you  could  not  be  inducted  into  the  oflice  of  Professor.  And 
should  you  refuse  to  renew  your  assent  every  five  years,  you  must  be 
dismissed  from  the  Seminary ;  although  you  should  firmly  adhere  to 
the  Bible,  and  offer  to  express  your  belief  in  the  very  words  of  inspira- 
tion, and  continue  to  exhibit  a  Christian  temper  and  character. 

And  is  not  this  use  of  the  human  creed  subversive  of  free  inquiry, 
religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  ?  For,  what 
inquiries  have  you  liberty  to  pursue  ?  Would  you  inquire  into  the 
truth  of  your  creed,  so  as  to  correct  any  errors  that  may  pertain  to 
this  human  composition?  No.  This  liberty  you  have  sacrificed. 
You  must  never  presume  to  make  a  single  alteration  in  this  human 
formulary ;   but  you  and  your  successors  must  sacredly  use  it  as  the 


LETTER  I.  7 

perfect  standard  of  religious  truth  for  ever.  For  so  you  are  bound 
to  conduct,  by  the  following  authoritative  injunction  from  the  consti- 
tution of  your  seminary.  "  It  is  strictly  and  solemnly  enjoined,  and  lejt 
in  sacred  charge,  that  every  article  of  the  above  said  creed  shall  for  ever 
remain  entirely  and  identically  the  same,  without  the  least  alteration, 
addition,  or  diminution."  —  Would  you  inquire  into  the  meaning  of  the 
Scriptures,  so  as  to  communicate  to  your  pupils  the  result  of  your 
investigations?  No.  This  liberty  you  have  sacrificed.  You  have 
bound  yourself  most  firmly  to  make  your  religious  instructions  conform 
exactly  to  the  sentiments  of  the  human  creed.  These  are  the  words 
of  your  solemn  obligation.  "  And  furthermore  I  do  solemnly  promise, 
that  I  will  open  and  explain  the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils  with  integrity 
and  faithfulness  ;  that  I  will  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith^ 
as  expressed  in  the  creed,  hy  me  now  repeated."  —  Would  you  inquire 
into  the  peculiar  religious  opinions  of  other  Christian  denominations, 
so  as  to  ascertain  if  their  belief  is  not  founded  on  the  plain  teachings 
of  inspiration  ?  No.  This  liberty  you  have  sacrificed.  You  have 
pledged  yourself  to  regard  the  sentiments  of  other  sects  as  erroneous, 
and  to  defend  your  creed  in  opposition  to  all  who  dissent  from  any 
of  its  articles.  These  are  the  words  of  your  sacred  oath.  "  And 
furthermore  I  do  solemnly  promise,  that  I  will  maintain  and  inculcate 
the  Christian  faith,  as  expressed  in  the  creed,  by  me  now  repeated — in 
opposition  to  Papists,  Arians,  Pelagians,  Antinomians,  Arminians, 
Socinians,  Sabellians,  Unitarians,  and  Universalists,  and  to  all  other 
heresies  and  errors,  ancient  or  modem"  —  Should  a  prayerful  study  of 
the  Bible  enable  you  to  discover  a  slight  error  in  some  one  article  of 
this  long  creed,  could  you  retain  your  situation  as  Professor  ?  No. 
This  liberty  you  have  sacrificed.  The  moment  you  advance  in  reli- 
gious knowledge  and  truth  one  step  beyond  the  ideas  of  this  human 
formulary,  you  must  vacate  your  office  ;  you  must  be  cast  on  the  wide 
world  with  a  dependent  family ;  you  must  encounter  coldness  and 
frowns  and  reproaches  from  your  former  associates ;  you  must  be 
privately  and  publicly  denounced  as  an  apostate,  a  heretic,  an  infidel ; 
and  above  all,  you  must  be  sentenced  to  endless  torments  for  your 
honest  preference  of  the  teachings  of  revelation  to  the  articles  of  a 
human  creed,  if  treated  as  others  have  been  who  have  embraced  unita- 
rianism.  These  are  the  words  of  your  constitution.  "  The  preceding 
Creed  and  Declaration  shall  be  repeated  by  every  Professor  on  this 
foundation,  at  the  expiration  of  every  successive  period  of  five  years  ; 
and  no  man  shall  be  continued  a  Professor  on  said  foundation,  who  shall 
not  continue  to  approve  himself  a  man  of  sound  and  orthodox  principles 
in  divinity,  agreeably  to  the  aforesaid  creed."  Sir,  is  this  the 
way  you  show  your  respect  and  reverence  for  the  Bible  ?  Is  this  the 
way  you  divest  yourself  of  all  party  prejudices,  when  you  proceed 
to  search  the  Scriptures  ?    Is  this  the  way  you  prepare  yourself  to 


8  LETTER  I. 

investigate  religious  subjects  with  honesty,  and  boldness,  and  fearless- 
ness ?  Is  this  the  way  you  enjoy  the  meridian  splendor  of  free  inquiry, 
religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  ? 

But  perhaps  you  will  aver,  that  there  is  no  possible  danger  of  your 
ever  dissenting  from  the  sentiments  of  this  human  creed.  Then  why 
all  these  fortifications?  And  have  not  many  divines,  as  wise,  as 
learned,  as  honest,  as  pious  as  yourself,  been  led,  by  a  patient  and 
prayerful  study  of  the  Scriptures,  to  renounce  their  belief  in  the  peculi- 
arities of  your  standard  of  religious  truth  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact,  that  one 
of  the  principal  founders  of  your  institution,  one  of  the  principal  fra- 
mers  of  this  very  creed,  and  one  of  the  earliest  Professors  in  your 
seminary,  became  a  Liberal  Christian  after  dissolving  his  connexion 
with  your  theological  faculty,  and  warmly  opposed  to  many  of  your 
illiberal  and  exclusive  measures  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact,  that  several  minis- 
ters, who  pursued  the  regular  course  of  theological  studies  in  your 
institution,  and  who  were  regarded  as  amongst  the  most  talented, 
the  most  learned,  the  most  sincere,  the  most  pious  of  your  students, 
have  since  embraced  unitarian  sentiments?  Is  it  not  a  fact,  that 
several  others,  of  high  standing  and  good  Christian  character,  were 
led  to  renounce  orthodox  views,  even  before  they  had  completed  the 
usual  term  of  education  in  your  seminary?  Is  it  not  a  fact,  that 
many  of  the  most  distinguished  unitarian  preachers  of  the  age  were 
once  as  zealously  orthodox  as  you  now  are  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact,  that 
every  year  witnesses  the  conversion  of  more  or  fewer  orthodox  minis- 
ters to  the  unitarian  faith  ?  And  could  you  be  placed  in  similar  circum- 
stances, what  would  prevent  similar  results  ?  I  do  not  mean  to  insinu- 
ate that  you  are  knowingly  influenced  by  your  peculiar  oaths  and 
obligations  to  make  the  Scriptures  bend  to  the  articles  of  your  creed. 
But  I  must  be  permitted  to  declare,  that  almost  all  earthly  motives, 
which  can  operate  on  tlie  human  heart,  combine  to  make  it  your 
interest  to  find  none  but  orthodox  views  in  the  Bible.  And  I  must 
further  aver,  that  I  am  unable  to  conceive  of  a  situation,  more  unfa- 
vorable to  free  inquiry  and  religious  liberty,  than  the  office  of  Professor 
in  orthodox  theological  seminaries. 

2.  Admission  to  Churches.  Secondly.  Look  at  the  use  made  of  human 
creeds  in  admitting  members  to  orthodox  churches.  Let  a  person 
apply  to  one  of  your  churches  for  admission  ;  let  him  relate  the  most 
satisfactory  experiences ;  let  him  declare  his  unwavering  belief  in 
divine  revelation ;  let  him  offer  to  express  his  peculiar  views  of 
religion  in  the  very  words  of  Scripture  ;  let  him  exhibit  undoubted 
evidence  of  virtue  and  piety,  —  and  would  you  admit  him  to  the  privilege 
of  church  membership?  No  ;  you  would  exclude  him  from  the  Lord's 
table,  unless  he  would  first  profess  his  hearty  belief  in  all  the  articles 
of  a  creed  ;  a  creed,  made  by  erring,  imperfect,  polluted  mortals ; 
a  creed,  scarcely  an  article  of  which  can  be  expressed  in  Scriptural 


LETTER  I.  g 

language  ;  a  creed,  which  many  of  the  wisest  and  most  pious  Chris- 
tians have  pronounced  erroneous.  Some  of  the  best  Christians  in  the 
country  have  been  refused  admission  to  orthodox  churches,  because 
they  could  not  honestly  subscribe  to  the  human  standard  of  truth. 

Here  then  is  a  notorious  fact.  No  person  can  be  admitted  to  many 
orthodox  churches,  unless  he  will  first  assent  to  the  articles  of  a  human 
formulary  of  faith.  I  say  no  person,  and  I  mean  to  be  understood  in 
a  literal  sense.  Yes  ;  let  our  blessed  Saviour  himself  appear  among 
his  followers  ;  let  him  conceal  from  observation  his  miraculous  powers  ; 
let  him  exhibit  the  same  character  as  when  preaching  the  gospel  in 
Judea ;  let  him  apply  for  admission  to  the  church  in  your  seminary  ; 
let  him  offer  to  express  his  articles  of  faith  in  any  words  used  by  him- 
self when  on  earth ;  let  him  refuse  to  subscribe  your  very  peculiar 
human  creed,  and  would  you  admit  him  to  your  communion  ?  I  ask 
this  question  with  unfeigned  reverence.  I  answer  it  with  horror  and 
shuddering.  But  I  speak  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness  when 
I  declare,  that  if  you  acted  coiTsistently  with  your  present  practice, 
you  muBt  exclude  him  from  your  church.  Yes  ;  your  adored  Saviour 
would  not  be  permitted  to  approach  that  feast  of  love,  of  which  he  is, 
or  ought  to  be,  the  sole  Master ;  he  could  not  be  received  into  that 
body  of  disciples,  of  which  he  is,  or  ought  to  be,  the  only  Head  ;  he 
must  be  driven  from  that  company  of  subjects,  by  their  own  unauthor- 
ized regulations,  of  which  he  is,  or  ought  to  be,  the  only  acknowledged 
Lawgiver !  Is  this  making  the  Bible,  or  a  human  creed,  your  standard 
of  religious  truth  ?  The  creed,  surely.  For  no  man  can  obtain  admis- 
sion to  your  church,  unless  he  will  profess  his  hearty  belief  in  all  the 
articles  of  a  long  human  creed  ;  although  he  adheres  most  firmly  to 
the  Bible,  and  is  willing  to  express  his  belief  in  the  words  of  his  Saviour, 
and  exhibits  evidence  of  Christian  holiness. 

And  is  not  this  use  of  human  creeds  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  re- 
ligious liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism?  Just  notice 
the  actual  operation  of  this  unchristian  measure  in  our  community. 
Look  at  those  parts  of  our  land  in  which  unitarian  churches  are  not 
yet  established.  In  almost  every  orthodox  society  you  find  individuals 
who  are  prohibited  from  the  Christian  ordinances  by  this  unauthorized 
usurpation.  They  consider  themselves  to  be  Christians.  They  have 
studied  the  word  of  God  as  faithfully  and  prayerfully  as  their  neigh- 
bours. They  exhibit  as  good  evidence  of  conversion  as  the  admitted 
professors.  They  earnestly  desire  to  have  their  beloved  off*spring  in- 
itiated into  the  school  of  Christ  by  baptism.  They  ardently  wish  to 
commemorate  the  dying  love  of  their  ascended  Lord.  They  are  ready 
to  acknowledge  their  belief  in  the  Bible,  and  their  determination  to 
make  it  the  standard  of  their  faith  and  practice.  They  cannot  honestly 
assent  to  the  articles  of  the  human  creed,  because  they  cannot  find 
them  supported  by  revelation.  They  are  persons  of  as  much  influence, 
2 


10  LETTER  I. 

usefulness,  respectability,  and  goodness,  as  any  in  the  place.  No  objec- 
tion to  their  moral  and  religoius  cliaracter  is  made  by  the  orthodox 
church.  They  are  persons  whom  you  would  be  proud  to  admit  to  your 
communion,  if  they  would  only  give  their  assent  to  your  human  creed. 
They  are  persons  whom  you  would  glory  in  pointing  out  as  ortiiodox 
believers.  But  no  ;  having  set  up  a  golden  image,  you  must  make 
them  bow  down  to  your  idol,  or  you  will  deprive  them  of  the  Christian 
name,  rights,  and  privileges.  You  are  willing  they  should  enjoy  liberty 
to  think  as  you  do  ;  but  the  moment  they  refuse  assent  to  your  interpre- 
tations of  Scripture,  you  deny  them  access  to  the  Christian  ordinances. 
And  by  what  authority  ?  You  indeed  have  a  perfect  right  to  say  who 
may  sup  at  your  private  table.  You  may  also  frame  creeds  to  exclude, 
from  your  board  of  refreshment,  members  of  your  own  household, 
friends,  and  strangers.  But  from  what  source  do  you  obtain  your  right 
to  drive  sincere  believers  of  good  character  from  the  Lord's  table  ?  Is 
not  this  feast  his  own  ?  Has  he  not  given  out  his  invitations  ?  Does 
he  not  entreat  all,  who  feel  qualified,  to  come  and  partake  freely  ?  Has 
he  commissioned  you  to  stand  at  the  door,  and  examine  the  claims  of 
all  candidates  for  admission  ?  —  to  try  their  qualifications  by  your  hu- 
man standard  ?  Has  he  not  rather  given  definite  instructions  for  the 
regulation  of  his  own  supper?  If  any  come  without  a  wedding  gar- 
ment, will  he  not  execute  the  threatened  punishment  ?  Has  he  author- 
ized you  to  beat  some,  and  stone  others,  who  come  in  compliance  with 
his  invitation  ?  In  so  doing,  do  you  not  often  deprive  as  worthy  Christians 
as  yourself  of  their  equal  and  inalienable  rights  ;  the  rights  of  free  in- 
quiry and  religious  liberty  ?  I  put  these  questions  to  the  consciences  of 
all  concerned. 

3.  Excommunication  frwn  Churches.  Thirdly.  Look  at  the  use  made  of 
a  human  creed  in  excommunicating  members  from  orthodox  churches. 
Let  it  be  known  that  one  of  your  church  members  has  renounced  his 
belief  in  some  of  the  articles  of  your  human  formulary,  and  he  will  be 
called  to  an  account  for  his  honest  opinions  by  the  church  to  which  he 
belongs.  Perhaps  he  will  not  even  be  allowed  on  trial  to  give  the 
Scriptural  reasons  for  his  change  of  sentiments.  He  will  be  command- 
ed to  renounce  his  heretical  opinions,  or  suffer  the  consequences.  Now 
he  can  no  more  renounce  his  belief  in  a  doctrine  of  revelaticm,  without 
evidence  of  itjs  falsity,  than  he  can  create  a  world  out  of  nothing.  He 
is  accordingly  denounced  as  a  heretic,  and  publicly  excommunicated 
from  the  fellowship  of  the  church.  And  for  what  crime  is  this  severe 
punishment  inflicted?  Has  he  been  guilty  of  any  immoral  or  un- 
christian conduct  ?  Nothing  of  the  kind  is  alleged.  He  has  indeed 
obeyed  Jesus  Christ;  and  prayerfully  searched  the  Scriptures;  and 
readily  embraced  what  appeared  to  be  the  true  meaning  of  the  sacred 
writers  ;  and  openly  acknowledged  his  honest  belief  Yes  ;  this  he 
has  done  ;  and  this  is  all,  for  which  orthodox  churches  hare  repeatedly 


LFTTER  I.  1 1 

excommunicated  some  of  the  most  perfect  Christians  of  this  period.  Is 
this  making  the  creed,  or  the  Bible,  the  standard  of  religious  truth  ?  The 
human  creed,  surely.  For  the  member  is  excommunicated  for  his  de- 
parture from  the  articles  of  the  creed  ;  whilst  his  accusers  must  admit 
that  he  still  makes  the  Bible  his  only  standard  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
exhibits  as  much  evidence  as  before  of  real  virtue  and  piety. 

And  is  not  this  use  of  the  human  creed  subversive  of  religious  liberty, 
free  inquiry,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  ?  Just  notice  a  very 
common  circumstance  in  the  case.  In  the  season  of  a  religious  excite- 
ment, persons  of  very  little  religious  knowledge  are  induced  to  join  your 
orthodox  churches.  They  surely  cannot  acquire  a  very  accurate  un- 
derstanding of  the  Scriptures,  during  the  short  period  that  intervenes 
between  their  supposed  conversion  and  their  admission  to  the  ordinan- 
ces. On  their  entrance  to  the  church,  they  are  obliged  to  profess  their 
hearty  belief  in  all  the  articles  of  a  human  creed,  some  of  which  they  do 
not  pretend  to  understand,  and  none  of  which,  perhaps,  they  have  ever 
examined.  After  their  admission,  they  are  sometimes,  not  always, 
exhorted  to  study  the  Bible,  and  make  that  the  standard  of  their  faith 
and  practice.  They  perform  this  duty  conscientiously ;  and  some  of 
them  are  unable  to  find  any  authority  for  a  belief  in  the  human  articles 
to  which  they  have  assented.  The  more  they  examine,  the  stronger 
their  convictions  become,  that  the  leading  doctrines  of  orthodoxy  cannot 
be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  In  this  predicament,  what  must  they  do  ? 
One  of  three  things.  They  must  either  acknowledge  their  dissent 
from  the  orthodox  standard  of  truth,  and  thus  subject  themselves  to  se- 
vere reproach  and  persecution,  and  even  open  excommunication ;  or 
they  may  confess,  as  two  zealous  promoters  of  orthodoxy  have  lately 
confessed,  that  the  plain  language  of  Scripture  was  unitarian,  but  their 
feelings  inclined  them  to  favor  orthodox  preaching,  and  thus  make 
their  feelings  a  standard  of  inspired  truth ;  or  they  may  do  as  many 
members  of  orthodox  churches  now  feel  compelled  to  do,  —  conceal  their 
real  sentiments  in  their  own  bosoms,  dread  the  inquiries  of  their  neigh- 
bours, bend  under  their  heavy  burden  of  spiritual  servitude,  and  pray 
for  the  approach  of  that  day,  when  all  true  disciples  shall  enjoy  the 
liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  them  free.  Is  this  granting  your 
church  members  the  enjoyment  of  religious  liberty,  free  inquiry,  and 
the  rights  of  Congregationalism  ? 

4.  Dividing  Churches.  Fourthly.  Look  at  the  use  made  of  a  human 
creed  by  the  orthodox  in  dividing  congregational  churches.  As  a  fair 
illustration  of  this  measure,  take  the  case  which  lately  occurred  at 
Wilton,  New  Hampshire.  In  the  year  1778,  the  first  church  in  Wilton 
adopted  a  creed  somewhat  orthodox  in  sentiment.  In  the  course  of  the 
next  year,  the  communicants,  probably  seeing  the  evils  of  a  human  stan- 
dard, passed  the  following  liberal  vote  :  ''  That  every  candidate,  previous 
to  his  admission,  give  his  consent  to  a  confession  of  faith,  or  exhibit  one 


13  LETTER  I. 

of  his  own,  or  a  relation  satisfactory  to  the  church."  Under  this  cath- 
olic regulation,  members  were  occasionally  admitted.  But  in  1803,  a 
creed,  not  materially  differing  from  the  former,  was  again  adopted ;  the 
former  vote,  however,  was  not  rescinded,  so  that  the  same  terms  of 
admission  were  still  enjoyed.  In  182:},  a  minority  of  this  church  felt 
aggrieved,  because  new  members  were  admitted  without  being  com- 
pelled to  subscribe  tlie  human  creed.  This  is  the  sum  and  substance 
of  their  complaint,  as  must  be  evident  to  all  who  will  read  their  docu- 
ments. They  requested  the  majority  to  unite  with  them  in  calling  a 
mutual  council  to  settle  tiieir  difficulties.  The  majority  considered  their 
complaints  unreasonable,  and  accordingly  refused  to  comply  with  their 
request.  The  minority  proceeded  to  call  an  ex  parte  council  of  orthodox 
divines,  among  whom  were  your  friends,  Drs.  Church  and  Edwards. 
After  long  deliberation,  they  came  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  minority 
had  sufficient  cause  of  grievance,  and  would  be  justified  in  forming 
themselves  into  a  new  church,  unless  they  could  bring  the  majority  to 
a  compliance  with  their  demands. 

But  let  us  have  the  very  words  of  this  council  of  congregational  min- 
isters. "  How  can  they  [the  minority]  see  the  introduction  of  a  creed, 
and  the  way  laid  open  for  the  introduction  of  an  indefinite  variety  of 
creeds,  subversive  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  end  not  be  aggrieved? — 
The  council  are  therefore  led  to  say.  Firsts  That  it  is  their  unanimous 
opinion,  that  all  the  members  who  hold  to  the  confession  of  1803,  and 
feel  aggrieved  with  essential  deviations  from  it,  not  only  have  a  right, 
but  are  under  solemn  obligations,  to  obtain  for  themselves  and  for  their 
families  the  enjoyment  of  the  preaching  and  the  ordinances  of  the  gos- 
pel, in  accordance  with  that  confession.  But  if  they  cannot  obtain  those 
privileges  while  they  remain  connected  with  those  who  have  occasioned 
their  present  difficulties  ;  then.  Secondly,  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  council 
that  they  are  bound  to  seek  the  enjoyment  of  these  privileges  in  some 
other  way.  But  if  it  be  needful  for  the  aggrieved  to  be  disconnected 
from  them,  then  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  council.  Thirdly,  That  it  is  more 
expedient  for  the  aggrieved  to  remain  in  a  body,  with  such  others  as 
may  join  them,  and  enjoy  among  themselves,  as  they  may  be  able,  the 
preaching  and  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  tiian  to  seek  admission  to  sister 
churches." 

Now  this  strikes  me  as  one  of  the  most  remarkable  cases  ever  re- 
corded in  the  annals  of  Congregationalism.  Just  look  at  a  plain  state- 
tbent  of  the  leading  facts.  Hero  is  a  minority  of  a  congregational 
church  ;  they  are  aggrieved  because  tlie  majority  will  not  restore  a 
human  creed,  which  they  have  outgrown  and  cannot  believe,  to  be  the 
standard  of  truth  for  the  admission  of  future  members;  aggrieved  be- 
cause they  cannot  shut  the  doors  of  the  churcii  against  all  who  will  not 
adopt  their  interpretations  of  Scripture.  They  accordingly  assemble  a 
body  of  congregational  divines  to  give  advice  under  this  difficulty;  and 


LETTER  I.  13 

this  learned  body  consider  their  grievance  so  serious  and  weighty,  as 
to  advise  them  to  secede  and  form  a  new  church,  unless  they  can  com- 
pel the  majority  to  surrender  their  most  sacred  rights  and  privileges. 
How  perfectly  uncongregational.  Is  this  making  tije  creed,  or  the 
Bible,  the  standard  of  religious  truth  ?  The  human  creed,  surely.  For 
the  minority  are  advised  to  separate,  unless  the  majority  will  adopt  a 
human  creed,  which  they  cannot  believe,  as  their  standard  of  Christian 
truth  ;  although  they  still  adhere  to  the  Bible,  and  give  all  persons  an 
equal  right  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  for  themselves.  And  surely  I 
need  not  ask  the  question,  if  such  a  measure  be  subversive  of  religious 
liberty,  free  inquiry,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism. 

5.  Exclusion  of  Ministers.  Fifthly.  Look  at  the  use  made  of  human 
creeds  by  the  orthodox  in  excluding  from  their  fellowship  ministers  of 
their  own  sentiments.  As  a  fair  illustration  of  this  measure,  take  the 
proceedings  of  the  orthodox  synod  at  Baltimore.  The  circumstances 
are  briefly  these.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Duncan  of  Baltimore,  a  distinguished 
orthodox  divine,  was  invited  to  preach  the  annual  discourse  before  the 
students  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton.  In  his  sermon  he 
spoke  slightingly  of  human  creeds,  and  urged  the  young  men  to  make 
the  Bible  alone  their  standard  of  faith  and  practice.  These  remarks  were 
not  relished  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Miller,  the  Principal  of  the  institution ; 
and  at  the  opening  of  the  next  term,  he  took  occasion  to  deliver  an  in- 
troductory lecture  on  the  utility  and  importance  of  human  creeds.  Mr. 
Duncan  soon  published  a  work  on  the  subject  of  creeds,  setting  forth 
their  origin  and  pernicious  tendency.  For  this  offence  he  was  sum- 
moned before  the  delegates  of  the  synod.  His  trial  lasted  several 
days.  Being  unable  to  make  him  renounce  his  error,  or,  in  reality, 
place  the  human  creed  before  the  Bible,  they  excommunicated  him  from 
their  body,  and  declared  his  pulpit  vacated.  But  his  own  church,  to 
whom  alone  he  was  amenable,  disregarded  this  act  of  clerical  usurpa- 
tion and  dictation. 

Now  if  this  transaction  had  not  taken  place  within  the  last  ten  years, 
and  if  the  documents  were  not  before  the  community,  more  than  one 
half  of  the  people  would  disbelieve  so  remarkable  a  statement.  They 
would  aver,  that  such  a  measure  was  too  great  an  outrage  upon  common 
sense,  to  say  nothing  of  religion,  to  have  been  perpetrated  in  this  en- 
lightened age,  and  in  this  land  of  boasted  freedom.  And  is  this  making 
the  Bible,  or  a  human  creed,  the  standard  of  religious  truth  ?  The  creed, 
surely.  For  this  able  and  eloquent  divine  was  publicly  excommunicated 
from  the  orthodox  denomination,  because  he  would  not  acknowledge 
the  utility  and  supreme  importance  of  human  creeds;  although  he  still 
adhered  firmly  to  the  divine  standard,  and  retained  his  Christian  char- 
acter, and  even  his  orthodox  sentiments.  It  would  be  an  insult  to  ask 
any  man  if  such  a  proceeding  was  consistent  with  religious  liberty,  free 
inquiry,  and  the  principles  of  congregational  churches. 


14  LETTER  I. 

6.  Voting  for  Ministers.  Sixthly.  Look  at  the  use  made  of  human 
creeds  in  depriving  the  proprietors  in  ortliodox  churches  of  the  right  of 
choosing  their  own  ministers.  A  few  words  of  explanation  are  neces- 
sary to  make  this  most  daring  act  of  orthodox  usurpation  fully  intelligi- 
ble to  the  community.  Some  few  years  since  the  leaders  of  the  ortho- 
dox party  hecame  alarmed  at  the  rapid  progress  of  unitarianism.  They 
saw  the  majority  of  one  congregation  after  another  electing  unitarian 
preachers.  They  wished  to  raise  some  barrier  to  the  spread  of 
liberal  views,  and  also  to  devise  some  measure  to  prevent  all  the 
meeting-houses  from  falling  into  unitarian  hands.  They  adopted  the 
plan  of  trust  deeds,  as  a  happy  expedient  for  effecting  both  objects. 
Their  operation  is  in  this  manner.  A  church  is  erected  with  orthodox 
funds.  The  pews  are  offered  for  sale  as  usual.  But  the  purchaser  is 
informed,  that  no  proprietor  will  be  allowed  to  vote  for  the  minister 
until  he  has  professed  his  hearty  belief  in  the  articles  of  a  human  creed  ; 
but  that  every  pew-holder  must  be  taxed  for  the  support  of  the  ministry. 
He  is  further  informed,  that  the  control  of  the  building  is  vested  in  the 
hands  of  certain  orthodox  trustees,  who  belong  in  part  to  other  societies 
and  who  will  furnish  the  minister,  whenever  the  proprietors  refuse  to 
subscribe  the  human  creed.  The  trustees  are  to  have  full  power  to 
fill  all  vacancies  in  their  numbers,  so  that  the  church  may  remain  in 
orthodox  hands  to  all  eternity,  if  orthodoxy  should  live  so  long. 

Here  then  is  a  notorious  fact.  The  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party 
have  lately  bound  down  several  churches  in  Boston  and  other  parts 
of  this  Commonwealth  by  trust  deeds,  so  that  the  pew-owners  are 
obliged  to  support  the  preacher,  but  are  denied  the  right  of  voting  for 
the  man  who  is  to  instruct  them  and  their  children  in  religion,  unless 
they  will  first  assent  to  the  articles  of  a  human  creed.  Is  this  making 
the  Bible,  or  a  human  creed,  the  standard  of  religious  truth  ?  The 
creed,  surely.  For  let  a  man  purchase  a  pew  in  a  trust-deed  church, 
and  come  under  obligations  to  aid  in  the  support  of  the  ministry  ;  let 
him  adhere  firmly  to  the  Bible,  and  exhibit  a  Christian  character  ; 
still  he  cannot  be  allowed  to  vote  for  the  minister  he  must  maintain, 
unless  he  will  first  profess  his  hearty  belief  in  all  the  articles  of  a 
long  human  creed. 

And  is  this  use  of  human  creeds  consistent  with  free  inquiry, 
religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  ?  Would  a 
similar  measure,  in  relation  to  our  political  rights,  be  called  consistent 
with  civil  liberty?  Just  suppose  a  parallel  case.  Suppose  that  a  ma- 
jority of  our  Representatives,  at  the  next  session  of  the  General  Court, 
should  be  Federalists.  Suppose  they  should  frame  a  political  creed, 
in  which  should  be  embodied  the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  Federal  de- 
nomination. Suppose  they  should  enact  a  law,  that,  hereafter,  no  man 
should  be  allowed  to  vote  for  the  Governor  of  the  state,  until  he  had  pro- 
feseed  his  hearty  belief  in  all  the  articles  of  Uiis  human  creed.    And, 


LETTER  I.  15 

in  order  to  keep  the  oiRce  in  Federal  hands  for  ever,  suppose  they  should 
convey  the  political  rights  of  all,  v/ho  v^^ill  not  comply  with  this  con- 
dition, into  the  iiands  of  twenty  Federal  trustees  in  neighbouring  states, 
giving  them  power  to  fill  all  vacancies  in  their  numbers,  and  to  elect 
the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth,  whenever  her  citizens  shall  re- 
fuse to  subscribe  the  Federal  creed.  Suppose  the  time  should  soon 
arrive,  when  no  Federal  individual  could  be  found  among  our  voters. 
Then  all,  who  contributed  to  the  support  of  our  public  officers,  would 
be  obliged  to  look  to  the  trustees  in  neighbouring  states  for  a  Federal 
Governor.  Would  the  people  have  any  civil  liberty  remaining? 
Would  not  the  man  be  pronounced  insane,  who  should  propose  such  a 
wicked  system  ? 

But  have  not  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  done  precisely  the 
same  thing  in  relation  to  the  religious  rights  of  the  people.  At  this 
very  time,  not  one  in  ten  of  those,  who  occupy  your  trust-deed 
churches,  can  be  allowed  to  vote  for  the  minister  he  is  obliged  to 
maintain.  And  when  the  children  of  those,  who  can  now  conscien- 
tiously subscribe  the  human  creed,  shall  come  upon  the  stage,  is  there 
any  probability  that  they  will  embrace  precisely  the  same  opinions  as 
their  fathers'  ?  Is  there  no  progress  to  be  made  in  religious  knowl- 
edge ?  Is  the  orthodox  world  now  to  become  stationary  for  the  first 
time  ?  If  not,  if  the  children,  with  their  improved  advantages,  should 
become  wiser  than  their  fathers,  they  could  not  honestly  assent  to 
all  the  articles  of  their  fathers'  human  formulary.  And,  unless  they 
do  thus  assent,  they  must  either  look  to  orthodox  trustees,  in  other 
societies,  to  furnish  them  with  a  preacher  they  dislike,  or  dispose  of 
their  property  in  the  house  at  a  dead  loss.  Is  it  not  truly  wonderful, 
that  people  are  so  ready  to  discover  any  infringement  of  their  civil 
rights,  while  their  religious  rights  may  be  wrested  from  them  without 
exciting  scarcely  a  murmur  or  complaint  ?  I  am  happy,  however,  to 
learn,  that  very  few  individuals  have  been  found,  so  lost  to  all  sense 
of  self-respect ;  so  recreant  to  the  spirit  of  republican  institutions  ;  so 
ready  to  confess  their  incapacity  to  select  their  own  religious  teachers  ; 
so  subservient  to  their  creed-signing  neighbours ;  and  so  regardless 
of  that  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  his  disciples  free,  as  to 
purchase  pews  which  are  fettered  by  the  unhallowed  restrictions  of 
trust-deeds.  And  I  firmly  believe,  that  even  these  few,  after  the 
present  period  of  high  party-excitement  shall  have  passed,  will  assert 
their  rights,  burn  their  creeds  and  trust-deeds,  vote  for  their  own  min- 
isters, and  no  longer  sacrifice  to  the  ambition  of  a  few  leaders  the 
principles  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  Congregationalism. 

I  have  room  for  no  more  facts  under  this  head.  What,  then,  must 
be  our  conclusion  ?  In  the  first  place,  do  not  the  facts,  which  I  have 
stated,  fully  prove,  that  the  orthodox  denomination  make  a  human 
creed,  and  not  the  Bible,  their  standard  of  religious  truth  ?  If  not,  take 


16  LETTER  I. 

simply  one  extract  from  a  standard  periodical  journal  of  your  denomina- 
tion, which  plainly  asserts  this  principle.  Here  it  is.  "  It  can  be,  we 
think,  shown,  that,  in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  the  Bible  is  not 
and  cannot  be  used  as  the  tole  teat  of  orthodoxy,  while  any  regard  is 
paid  to  truth  in  the  constitution  of  a  Christian  church."  I  presume 
this  declaration  will  be  sufficient  for  the  satisfaction  of  every  man. 
In  the  second  place,  do  not  the  facts,  which  I  have  stated,  also  fully 
prove,  that  the  use  made  of  human  creeds,  by  the  orthodox  denomina- 
tion, is  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles 
of  Congregationalism  ?  If  not,  take  simply  one  extract  from  the  writ- 
ings of  your  excellent  friend,  Dr.  Miller,  which  fully  implies  this  con- 
clusion. Here  it  is.  "  The  Calvinistic  articles  of  the  church  of  Ens- 
land  were  the  means  of  keeping  her  doctrinally  pure,  to  a  very  re- 
markable degree,  for  the  greater  part  of  a  hundred  years.  In  the 
reign  of  James  the  First,  very  few  opponents  of  Calvinism  dared  pub- 
licly to  avow  their  opinions ;  and  of  those  who  did  avow  them,  numbers 
were  severely  disciplined,  and  others  saved  themselves  from  similar  treat- 
ment by  subsequent  silence  and  discretion.  The  inroads  of  error  there- 
fore were  very  powerfully  checked,  and  its  triumphs  greatly  retarded  by 
these  PUBLIC  standards."  This  is  the  Doctor's  argument  for  the 
utility  of  public  standards,  or  human  creeds,  in  our  country ;  so  that 
those,  who  dissent  from  ,them,  may  be  severely  disciplined,  and  others 
avoid  similar  treatment  by  being  hypocrites.  This  is  enough  to  set- 
tle the  question.  I  must  conclude  that  both  propositions  are  perfectly 
demonstrated. 

II.  Ministerial  Intercourse. 

In  the  second  place,  I  invite  your  attention  to  the  orthodox  terms 
of  Ministerial  Intercourse.  I  think  the  facts  I  shall  adduce,  under 
this  head,  will  prove  the  two  following  distinct  propositions.  First, 
that  the  measures  adopted  by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  denomina- 
tion, for  preventing  ministerial  intercourse  with  unitarians,  are  oppres- 
sive, tyrannical,  and  unclTristian.  And,  secondly,  that  these  measures 
are  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of 
Congregationalism.  My  limits  will  permit  me  to  notice  but  five 
different  classes  of  facts  under  this  general  division. 

1.  Misrepresentation.  First.  Look  to  the  misrepresentations,  which 
orthodox  individuals  have  invented  and  circulated,  to  prevent  minis- 
ters of  their  own  sentiments  from  exchanging  witii  unitarians.  Take 
a  notorious  instance  which  occurred  about  two  years  since.  The  cir- 
cumstances are  briefly  these.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Hubbard,  a  minister  of 
acknowledged  orthodox  sentiments,  and  late  pastor  of  the  church  in 
Middleton,  was  invited  to  a  re-settlemeht  over  tlie  congregational  so- 
ciety in  Lunenburg.  It  was  generally  known  to  his  ministerial  breth- 
ren, that  he  was  in  the  practice  of  exchanging  with  unitarians.  This 
circumstance  alone  induced  some  orthodox  preachers  in  the  vicinity  of 


LETTER  I.  17 

Lunenbu"?  to  make  great  exertions  to  prevent  his  installation.  And 
what  measures  do  you  suppose  they  adopted  to  effect  this  object?  I 
grieve  for  the  iniquity  of  the  individuals  concerned,  while  I  record 
their  wicked  transactions.  They  went  to  Andover,  and  earnestly  soli- 
cited from  the  orthodox  ministers  in  the  nei^^hbourhood  of  Middleton 
some  information  derogatory  to  the  character  of  Mr.  Hubbard.  False 
and  slanderous  reports  were  invented  by  an  individual  in  Middleton, 
communicated  to  an  orthodox  minister  in  Danvers,  and  conveyed  by 
him  to  the  prim-ipal  agent  in  this  unrighteous  work.  The  Rev.  Mr. 
Payson  of  Leominster,  having  obtained  the  desired  misrepresentations, 
went  into  Lunenburg,  communicated  them  to  an  influential  family,  and 
requested  them  to  put  them  in  circulation  and  conceal  the  name  of 
their  informer.  He  affirmed,  that  Mr.  Hubbard  was  a  bad  man,  brought 
tp  his  children  to  swear,  and  would  prove  a  curse  to  the  society  if  they 
retained  him  as  their  pastor.  Such  reports  now  threw  the  parish  into 
consternation,  and  reached  the  ears  of  the  pastor  elect.  He  proceed- 
ed immediately  to  the  source  of  the  evil,  and  eventually  dragged  to 
light  the  individuals  concerned.  By  the  terrors  of  the  civil  law,  he 
compelled  them  to  confess  their  wickedness  and  agency  in  the  base 
undertaking. 

I  will  now  give  you  a  copy  of  three  confessions.  Take  first  that  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Braman  of  Danvers.  It  will  show  you  that  he  was  earn- 
estly beset  by  orthodox  ministers  for  information  injurious  to  the  repu- 
tation of  Mr.  Hubbard.  Here  it  is.  "  Whe  eas,  in  consequence  of  earn- 
est soticitation  from  clergijmen  in  the  vicinity  of  Lunenburg,  I  made 
statements  of  reports  which  were  injurious  to  the  character  of  Rev. 
Mr.  tJubbard  ;  I  hereby  declare,  that  from  persons  in  Middleton  who 
belonged  to  the  society  of  which  Rev.  Mr.  Hubbard  was  pastor,  in 
whose  veracity  I  have  entire  confidence,  I  have  received  free  testimo- 
nials of  his  moral  and  ministerial  character  ;  and  that  having  been 
at  considerable  pains  to  make  inquiries,  I  now  declare  it  to  be  my  con- 
viction, that  all  rumors  prejudicial  to  his  moral  reputation  are  destitute 
of  foundation,  and  I  hereby  express  my  sincere  regret  and  sortoiv,  that 
I  was  the  instrument  of  circulating  the  reports  in  question." 

Take  next  the  confession  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Payson,  who  went  into 
Lunenburg  to  circulate  the  slanderous  reports.  He  was  afterwards 
asked  before  witnesses,  if  he  should  have  taken  such  a  step,  had  not 
Mr.  Hubbard  exchanged  with  unitarians.  His  answer  was  -  No.  He 
also  intimated,  that  Mr.  Putnam  of  Fitchburg  and  Mr.  Fisher  of  Har- 
vard, in  connexion  with  himself,  had  taken  Lunenburg  under  their 
special  protection.  Many  other  particulars  of  a  similar  character 
might  be  mentioned  to  his  disadvantage,  did  my  liiuits  or  inclination 
permit.  Let  us  then  have  his  confession.  "  This  certifies  to  all  whom 
it  may  concern,  that  some  time  during  the  month  of  October  last,  from 
-    3 


18  LETTER  I. 

information  received  from  a  person  in  whom  I  confided,  I  made  certain 
statements  to  Edmund  and  Elizabeth  Proctor  of  Lunenburg,  and  to 
some  other  individuals,  unfavorable  and  lierogatory  to  the  ministerial 
and  moral  character  of  Rev.  Ehenezer  Hubbard,  now  pastor  of  the 
congregational  church  in  Lunenburg;  which  statements  have  been 
ascertained  by  my  informant  to  be  false  and  groundless,  of  which 
evidence  has  been  presented  to  me  ;  therefore,  on  the  ground  of  this 
evidence,  I  do  now  declare  my  belief  that  the  said  statements  are  false 
and  groundless.  And  I  further  declare  my  sincere  regret,  that  any 
statements  made  by  me,  from  misapprehension,  or  anjj  other  cause, 
though  I  would  not  implicate  any  one  individual,  should  have  been 
magnified  into  public  reports  injurious  to  the  private  character  of  Rev. 
Mr.  Hubbard,  which  I  have  no  wish  to  impeach,  and  in  regard  to 
which  1  know  nothing  injurious  or  derogatory." 

I  will,  lastly,  give  you  the  confession  of  the  orthodox  gentleman  in 
Middleton,  who  originated  these  slanderous  reports.  As  he  writes 
like  a  true  penitent,  I  shall  withhold  his  name  from  the  public  ;  for  I 
have  no  wish  to  injure  his  reputation,  and  I  trust  his  own  conscience 
will  inflict  the  most  severe  piinishment  for  such  aggravated  wicked- 
ness. Here  it  is.  "  Be  it  known  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  I 
have,  during  the  year  last  past,  been  circulating  reports  that  are  highly 
injurious  to  the  moral  and  ministerial  character  of  Rev.  Ebenezer 
Hubbard,  late  minister  of  this  town.  I  have  made  statements  dishon- 
orable to  liim  and  his  children,  to  ministers  and  ether  individuals,  with 
whom  I  have  been  conversant.  I  now  freely  acknowledge  and  pub- 
licly declare,  that  the  statements  made  by  me  at  any  time,  and  to  any 
person,  against  Mr.  Hubbard's  character,  are  false  and  groundless, 
unprovoked  and  slanderous;  and  I  take  this  method  to  make  public 
my  sorrow  and  regret,  that  I  have  labored  to  injure  a  man  who  never 
injured  me,  and  whose  moral  character  and  conduct,  I  have  reason  to 
believe,  as  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  has  been  correct.  I  also 
further  declare,  that  I  never  heard  Mr.  Hubbard's  children  use  profane 
language.    JHddleton,  Jipril  24//i,  18*29." 

Now  is  not  this  a  most  aggravated  instance  of  misrepresentation,  origi- 
nated and  executed  by  orthodox  individuals  to  prevent  a  minister  of  their 
own  sentiments  from  exchanging  with  unitarians?  Just  remember  the 
leading  circumstances.  Here  is  an  orthodox  Minister  of  good  reputa- 
tion ;  he  is  surrounded  by  a  family  of  young  and  dependent  cliildren  ;  he 
has  no  means  of  subsistence  but  the  income  of  his  professional  services ; 
he  is  on  the  eve  of  settlement  over  a  united  society,  who  wish  him  to 
continue  his  practice  of  exchanges  with  unitarians.  At  this  moment, 
a  neighbouring  orthodox  minister  enters  the  parish,  visits  one  of  the 
most  influential  families,  solemnly  assures  them  that  their  pastor  elect 
is  a  bad  man,  and  will  prove  a  curse  to  their  society,  —  desires  them  to 
put  the  slanderous  reports  into  immediate  circulation,  and  carefully 


LETTER  I.  ig 

to  conceal  the  name  of  their  informant.  The  whole  church  are  in  dis- 
may. What  to  do  they  know  not.  And  had  not  Mr.  Hubbard  pursued 
the  business  with  the  coolness  of  an  innocent  and  injured  man,  and 
with  the  decision  of  a  Christian  parent  and  freeman,  he  would  have 
been  utterly  ruined  as  to  all  worldly  prospects,  and  perhaps  reduced  even 
to  beggary.  And  all  this  wicked  contrivance  for  what  cause  .'  Simply 
because  he  exercised  an  independent  ministry ;  simply  and  solely 
because  he  would  exchange  with  unitarians.  If  such  measures  are 
not  oppressive,  tyrannical,  and  unchristisn,  I  know  not  the  meaning  of 
the  words.  And  if  they  are  not  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious 
liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism,  1  know  not  what 
measures  can  be.  Other  instances  of  misrepresentation  by  orthodox 
individuals,  for  similar  objects,  though  of  a  more  private  and  recent 
character,  have  come  to  my  knowledge,  but  must  be  omitted  for  want 
of  room. 

2.  Threatening.  Secondly.  Look  at  the  threatenings  used  by  the 
leaders  of  the  orthodox  party,  to  prevent  ministers  of  their  own  senti- 
ments from  exchanging  with  unitarians.  Take  an  example  of  recent 
occurrence.  The  circumstances  are  briefly  these.  A  unitarian  minis- 
ter of  Salem,  in  company  with  an  influential  layman  of  Andover,  called 
on  an  orthodox  minister  of  Middlesex  county,  to  obtain  an  exchange 
for  the  following  Sabbath.  As  the  orthodox  minister  had  before 
preached  in  Salem,  he  addressed  to  him  the  following  observation : 
"  I  hope  you  are  not  getting  into  the  exclusive  system."  The  reply 
contained  the  following  sentiments,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the 
layman,  now  before  me.  "  I  ahhor  the  system^  but  am  compelled  to  enter 
into  it ;  for  they  have  told  me,  if  I  do  not  join  them,  they  will  fall  upon 
me  and  break  up  my  parish."  The  layman  immediately  repeated  this 
very  appropriate  proverb  :  "  The  fear  of  man  bringeth  a  snare."  And 
so  it  has  proved.  Here  you  perceive,  that  an  orthodox  minister  hon- 
estly confessed  his  abhorrence  of  your  exclusive  system,  and  his  forced 
compliance  with  it  from  fear  of  the  execution  of  your  threatenings.  I 
do  not  now  mention  the  name  of  this  individual,  because  I  would  not 
expose  him  to  any  more  severe  pain,  than  I  believe  his  conscience  has 
already  inflicted. 

This  is  but  one  of  many  similar  instances.  I  mean,  that  many  are 
deterred  from  exchanges  with  unitarians  by  the  various  threatenings  of 
your  leaders.  About  two  years  since,  one  of  the  very  zealous  and 
exclusive  ministers  remarked  of  the  orthodox  minister  of  Pepperell, 
that  he  doubted  his  piety,  because  he  exchanged  with  unitarians  ;  that 
ihey  were  laboring  to  prevent  him  from  so  doing,  and  that  they  should 
persevere  until  their  object  was  accomplished.  I  have  lately  heard 
that  this  object  is  accomplished,  that  this  man  has  surrendered  his 
independence  to  his  clerical  brethren,  that  they  have  broken  him  down, 
as  they  term  the  result  of  their  various  measures.     When  your  leaders 


20  LETTER  I. 

have  not  been  able  to  gain  their  ends  by  threatenings,  they  have  put 
their  threatenings  in  execution.  Take  the  proceedings  in  (Jlouccater 
as  a  fair  illustration  of  this  assertion. 

Now  do  you  ima^^inu  that  the  puhlii*  will  long"  subuut  to  this  priestly 
dictation  ?  Will  parishes  much  hmofcr  suffer  their  ministers  to  be 
frightened  by  orthodox  leaders  from  exchanging  with  unitarians?  Will 
they  not  rather  assert  their  own  rights,  as  well  as  the  rights  of  their 
pastors?  And  in  order  to  manifest  their  independence,  will  they  not 
require  a  continuance  of  liberal  exchanges?  Yes,  Sir;  you  may  de- 
pend, that  the  orthodox  ministers  who  are  now  deterred  from  ministe- 
rial intercourse  with  unitarians  by  your  threateuings,  will  ere  long  be 
released  from  their  servitude.  They  will  be  aided  and  supported  by 
public  sentiment  in  the  maintenance  of  their  'individual  and  congrega- 
tional rights.  They  will  be  protected  in  an  independent  course  by  the 
voice  of  a  free  people.  And  orthodox  leaders  will  be  made  to  realize, 
that  such  threatenings  ore  oppressive,  tyrannical,  and  unchristian  ;  and 
also  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of 
Congregationalism. 

3.  Oppression.  Thirdly.  Look  at  the  oppression  practised  by  the 
leaders  of  the  orthodox  party,  to  prevent  ministers  of  their  own  senti- 
ments from  exchanging  with  unitarians.  I  allude  particularly  to  the 
exclusive  rules  adopted  by  the  majorities  of  some  ministerial  associa- 
tions. In  all  parts  of  the  Commonwealth,  there  are  more  or  fewer  ortho- 
dox ministers  who  are  perfectly  vvdling,  if  we  may  believe  their  own 
words,  to  exchange  with  unitarians.  They  openly  aver,  that  they  can 
see  no  good,  but  much  evil,  resulting  from  the  exclusive  system ;  that 
there  is  common  ground  enough  on  which  to  hold  ministerial  inter- 
course with  unitarians;  and  that  so  far  as  they  are  themselves  con- 
cerned, they  have  not  the  least  objection  to  such  a  course.  They  also 
declare,  that  they  are  prevented  from  exchanging  with  unitarians,  by 
the  regulations  of  their  orthodox  brethren,  who  have  agreed  to  exclude 
from  their  associations,  their  ministerial  fellowship,  and  their  Christian 
sympathy,  all  w^ho  will  not  conform  to  their  laws  on  the  question.  Sev- 
eral instances  of  such  confessions  have  come  to  my  knowledge.  I  will 
merely  refer  to  the  conversation  of  one  orthodox  minister  in  Middlesex 
county.  When  speaking  on  the  subject  of  exchanges  with  a  neigh- 
bouring unitarian  minister,  and  afterwards  with  one  of  his  parishioners, 
be  utU'red  the  sentiments  I  have  recorded.  Is  not  thij  acknowledg- 
ing, that  the  usurpations  of  his  clerical  brethren  prevent  hiin  from 
exchanging  with  unitarians  ? 

And  does  not  this  confession  fully  establish  the  usurpation  of  the 
leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  ?  What  right  have  a  majority  of  an 
ortliodox  association  to  adopt  rules  which  shall  oppress  the  minority  ? 
Yes;  oppreta  the  minority!  For  if  they  exchange  acconling  to  the 
dictates  of  their  judgment  and  the    wishes  of  their  hearers,  the 


LETTER  I.  ^1 

majority  commence  their  measures  of  persecution,  first  by  excluding 
them  from  the  association  ;  next,  by  refusing  to  acknowledge  them  as 
Christian  ministers  ;  and  finally,  by  breaking  up  the  harmony  of  their 
parishes,  and  destroying  their  peace,  usefulness,  and  reputation.  Will 
the  community  allow  such  usurpation  of  ministerial  and  congrega- 
tional rights  much  longer  ?  No.  Let  them  utter  their  opinion  on  this 
subject  with  distinctness  and  authority  ;  and  loud  as  seven  thunders. 
In  this  way  they  may  put  down  this  unholy  combination  of  orthodox 
leaders  to  regulate  the  exchanges  of  their  brethren;  a  combination 
oppressive,  tyrannical,  and  unchristian;  a  combination  subversive  of 
free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism. 
4.  Concealment.  Fourthly.  Look  at  the  concealment  which  has  been 
practised  by  orthodox  ministers  in  relation  to  ministerial  intercourse. 
I  allude  particularly  to  those  cases,  in  which  orthodox  candidates  have 
obtained  settlements  over  comparatively  liberal  societies,  by  concealing 
their  real  theological  sentiments,  and  their  real  views  respecting  ex- 
changes with  unitarians.  So  many  cases  of  this  nature  are  at  hand,  that 
it  is  difiicult  to  make  a  selection.  I  will  refer  to  an  instance  of  late  oc- 
currence in  Middlesex  county.  The  circumstances  are  briefly  these. 
The  society  was  small  in  numbers.  They  occupied  a  house  of  wor- 
ship owned  principally  by  unitarian  proprietors.  A  large  majority  of 
the  voters  were  of  unitarian  sentiments.  They  were  scarcely  able  of 
themselves  to  support  a  minister  properly.  A  wealthy  orthodox  indi- 
vidual in  the  neighbourhood  offered  to  contribute  a  generous  sum 
annually,  provided  the  society  would  settle  a  man  of  orthodox  views  ; 
but  was  perfectly  willing  he  should  exchange  with  unitarians.  Such 
an  one  was  at  length  obtained,  who  preached  practical  discourses 
principally,  and  manifested  a  willingness  to  be  liberal  in  his  ministerial 
intercourse.  The  call  was  given  and  accepted.  The  council  was 
invited  from  unitarian  as  well  as  orthodox  churches,  and  parts  as- 
signed indiscriminately  to  ministers  of  both  denominations.  Before  the 
vote  was  taken  to  proceed  to  the  ordination,  one  or  two  unitarian 
ministers  wished  to  know  distinctly,  whether  the  pastor  elect  would 
exchange  with  persons  of  their  opinions.  One  or  two  orthodox  min- 
isters objected  to  his  giving  an  answer  to  such  a  question.  At  length, 
one  of  the  council  from  Andover  rose  and  observed  in  substance,  that 
he  was  well  acquainted  with  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  the  society, 
and  that  the  pastor  elect  was  also  perfectly  informed  on  this  subject ; 
that  he  likewise  understood  the  different  views  of  the  members  of  the 
council,  and  was  authorized  by  the  pastor  elect  to  say,  that  he  should 
pursue  such  a  course  in  relation  to  exchanges  as  would  give  satisfac- 
tion to  every  member,  and  that  he  was  present  and  would  signify  if  he 
dissented  from  this  statement.  A  unitarian  delegate  observed,  that 
he  presumed  the  Andover  preacher  had  authority  for  what  he  stated, 
as  the  pastor  elect  was  present  and  confirmed  it  by  his  silence ;  and 


22  LETTER  I. 

that  if  he  teas  sincere  in  the  declaration,  he  supposed  it  would  be 
satisfactory  to  the  whole  council.  With  such  an  express  understand- 
ing he  was  ordained.  He  continued  for  a  year  or  more  to  preach  prac- 
tical sermons,  and  to  exchange  occasionally  with  unitarian  ministers. 
But  a  new  system  of  operation  was  commenced,  by  changing  or  alter- 
ing the  covenant  of  the  church,  and  by  treating  on  doctrinal  and  con- 
troversial subjects.  Then  a  refusal  to  exchange  with  unitarians  was 
given  to  one  and  another  requesting  the  same.  At  length  the  follow- 
ing memorial  was  addressed  to  him  by  about  thirty  of  his  parishioners  ; 
a  very  important  portion  of  his  society,  since  but  six  individuals  voted 
for  his  settlement  and  seven  for  his  salary  ;  not  but  that  the  others 
were  satisfied  with  his  discourses  and  his  promised  liberal  course  of 
exchanges,  but  they  feared  the  concealment  which  had  been  so  often 
practised  by  orthodox  ministers  in  similar  circumstances. 
"  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

"  We  the  subscribers,  members  of  your  society,  would  respectfully 
represent,  that  we  feel  disappointed  and  aggrieved  by  the  course  pur- 
sued by  you  in  respect  to  the  exchange  of  ministerial  labors  the  year 
past.  We  had  fondly  hoped  that  you  would  have  extended  that  Chris- 
tian charity  which  characterized  the  commencement  of  your  pastoral 
labors.  And  we  sincerely  hope  you  will,  upon  consideration  of  the 
situation  of  the  society,  so  far  gratify  us,  as  to  resume  the  course  in 
that  respect  which  you  pursued  at  your  settlement.  The  object  of 
this  request  is,  to  keep  our  little  society  united  ;  for  we  fear  a  different 
course  will  produce  divisions  among  us,  which  will  weaken  and  disturb 
the  harmony  of  the  society.  With  sentiments  of  respect,  we  are  your 
friends  and  parishioners.    January,  1830." 

And  what  kind  of  an  answer  do  you  suppose  one  of  your  pupils 
returned  to  this  respectful  communication  ?  The  most  Jesuitical  letter 
I  ever  read.  One  of  the  most  distinguished  legal  gentlemen  in  this 
country  observed  on  reading  it ;  '  This  document  might  have  been 
written  by  a  lawyer,  but  should  never  have  come  from  the  pen  of  a  min- 
ister.^ As  it  occupies  four  closely  written  pages,  I  shall  have  room 
only  for  the  conclusion.  Here  it  is.  "  You  will  perceive,  gentlemen, 
that  I  have  given  four  distinct  answers  to  the  memorial  which  you 
have  presented  to  me.  First,  that  I  cannot  understand  from  the  lan- 
guage of  the  subscribers  the  real  cause  of  their  dissatisfaction,  nor 
the  remedy  which  they  wish  me  to  apply.  Secondly,  upon  supposition 
that  they  wish  me  to  exchange  with  unitarians,  a  compliance  with 
their  wishes  would  not  prevent  the  division  which  they  fear.  Thirdly, 
that  individuals  have  no  right  to  alt'^r  the  contract  which  the  church 
and  society  entered  into  with  me  at  my  settlement.  And,  fourthly, 
that  no  one  should  presume  to  control  my  exchanges,  until  he  can 
share  with  me  the  weight  of  my  responsibility."  Now  this  very  docu- 
ment furnishes  much  evidence  of  this  man's  concealment  of  his  real 


LETTER  I.  23 

intentions  when  ordained.  And  one  further  fact  will  confirm  this  con- 
clusion. It  is  this.  Just  before  this  memorial  was  presented,  he  was 
asked  by  a  baptist  clergyman,  what  success  attended  his  labors.  He 
replied,  that  he  now  considered  himself  as  firmly  settled  over  an 
orthodox  church  as  any  minister  in  the  region.  Do  not  all  the  facts 
in  the  case  seem  to  indicate  an  artful  and  deep-laid  plan,  to  bring  a 
unitarian  church  and  society  upon  orthodox  ground  ?  I  verily  hope 
this  is  the  last  instance  in  which  a  liberal  society  will  have  their 
expectations  disappointed  by  orthodox  preachers. 

5.  Orthodox  Reasons  for  not  exchanging  loith  Unitarians.  Fifthly, 
Look  to  some  of  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox 
party  for  not  exchanging  with  unitarians.  This  system  of  exclusion 
was  commenced  in  Connecticut  as  early  as  1806.  That  year  the 
general  Association  of  the  state  recommended  to  the  ministers  to 
withhold  fellowship  from  any  clergyman  who  should  deny  the  divinity 
of  Christ  or  the  atonement.  This  was  probably  done  in  reference  to 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Sherman,  who  embraced  unitarianism  about  that  period. 
But  no  reasons  were  assigned  by  the  association  for  this  exclusive 
measure.  In  this  commonwealth  various  reasons  have  been  assigned. 
One  small  class  pretend  that  their  consciences  will  not  permit  them  to 
exchange  with  unitarians.  Now  it  appears  to  me,  that  if  I  had  em- 
braced Calvinism,  and  really  believed  a  portion  of  my  hearers  must 
be  inevitably  damned,  my  conscience  would  have  come  to  an  opposite 
decision.  I  should  have  felt  so  much  pity  for  those  who  were  fore- 
ordained to  endless  torments,  that  any  thing  I  could  have  done  for 
their  happiness  during  their  few  remaining  days,  would  have  been 
cheerfully  performed.  And  ii'  they  had  desired  to  hear  a  preacher, 
who  should  declare  to  them  that  God  was  a  Father  of  all  his  children, 
my  conscience  would  have  prompted  me  to  comply  with  their  wishes. 
But  there  is  no  accounting  for  the  decisions  of  conscience ;  and  there- 
fore I  will  not  attempt  to  reason  on  the  subject. 

Another  class  pretend  that  they  cannot  exchange  with  unitarians, 
because  they  are  responsible  for  the  sentiments  delivered  from  their 
pulpits.  I  can  inform  such  how  they  may  easily  rid  themselves  of  this 
heavy  burden  of  responsibleness  One  of  their  number  has  set  the 
example.  He  informed  his  people,  that  he  would  comply  with  their 
request  to  exchange  with  unitarians,  provided  they  would  take  all  the 
responsibility  on  their  own  shoulders.  They  called  a  parish  meeting, 
and  voted  to  take  the  responsibleness  of  their  minister's  exchanges  with 
unitarians  on  their  own  heads.  This  is  a  happy  expedient.  I  advise 
all  those  ministers  who  give  this  reason  for  continuing  in  the  exclusive 
system,  to  make  the  same  proposals  to  their  parishes  the  approaching 
spring  ;  and  I  have  no  doubt  they  will  be  relieved  of  their  weighty 
load  of  responsibleness. 

A  third  class  pretend  that  their  societies  are  opposed  to  their  ex- 


24  LETTER  I. 

changing  with  unitarians.  If  a  majority  are  opposed,  no  fault  can  be 
found  with  the  minister ;  for  he  is  accountable  on  this  question  only 
to  his  God  and  his  people.  But  if  one  or  a  few  bigoted  individuals 
undertake  to  control  the  minister,  it  becomes  the  majority  to  assert 
their  rights  I  would  certainly  wish  every  people  to  act  their  pleasure 
on  this  subject.  I  have  no  wish  to  dictate  to  any  minister  in  relation 
to  his  exchanges,  and  I  surely  am  not  to  be  controlled  in  mine  by  any 
minister  or  body  of  ministers.  What  I  am  contending  against,  is  this 
unhallowed  combination  of  a  few  orthodox  leaders,  by  which  many 
ministers  of  their  own  sentiments  are  brought  into  utter  servitude. 
This  is  felt  and  understood  by  some  among  themselves ;  and  a  few  are 
bold  enough  to  expose  the  iniquity  of  the  leaders.  As  a  specimen, 
I  will  give  you  a  paragraph,  written  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Withington,  of 
Newbury,  a  distinguished  orthodox  divine.  Had  it  been  published  by 
a  unitarian,  I  have  no  doubt  you  would  have  pronounced  it  gross 
slander.  But  it  will  confirm  all  my  statements  under  this  division; 
and  coming  from  high  orthodox  authority,  must  be  unanswerable. 

"  To  illustrate  our  manners,  if  ever  this  book  should  fall  into  the 
hands  of  a  foreigner,  let  me  mention  in  a  note,  a  circumstance  which 
is  certainly  unworthy  of  a  place  in  the  text.  In  Massachusetts,  for  a 
few  years  past,  all  ecclesiastical  measures  have  been  prepared  in  a 
certain  conclave,  nobody  knows  who  they  are,  or  where  they  are,  invis- 
ible beings,  congregational  cardinals,  to  whose  decrees  every  orthodox 
clergyman  and  church  is  expected  to  pay  unlimited  deference  and  sub- 
mission. But  as  they  are  wholly  destitute  of  power,  they  have  found 
out  a  singular  way  of  executing  their  laws.  The  clergyman,  who  hesi- 
tates, OR  DARES  TO  THINK  OR  ACT  FOR  HIMSELF,  Suddenly  fiuds  him- 
self surrounded  by  the  whisper,  that  he  is  becoming  an  unitarian. 
It  is  not  easy  to  conceive  the  horror  and  dismay,  that  this  suggestion 
occasions.  It  is  caught  from  mouth  to  mouth,  and  whispered  from  ear 
to  ear,  and  every  ghastly  relator  increases  the  terrors  of  the  tale. 
The  poor,  affrighted  victim  must  either  return  to  the  bosom  of  the 
church,  the  popidar  mnasure  of  the  day,  or  be  denounced  a  heretic,  w  orthy 
of  all  the  flames  that  detraction  can  kindle ;  for,  in  this  country,  we 
bum  heretics  in  no  other.  I  will  only  add,  that  this  state  of  society  is 
rather  amusing  ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  magnanimity  of  the  great  men, 
who  condescend  to  use  such  weapons,  it  is  singular  enough  to  see  to 
what  useful  purpose  the  unitarians  may  be  put ;  they  not  only  serve  as 
whetstones,  on  which  staunch  polemics  may  sharpen  their  weapons, 
but  they  make  excellent  bugbears  to  keep  naughty  boys  in  order. 
O  the  follies  of  the  wise  ! "  ' 

Now  this  is  a  truly  wonderful  paragraph,  as  coming  from  one  of  the 
orthodox  ministers  of  this  Commonwealth  ;  and  true  to  the  very  letter. 
It  also  confirms  every  statement  I  have  advanced,  and  must  receive  the 
confidence  of  all  independent  orthodox  Christians.    What  then  must 


LETTER  I.  25 

be  our  conclusion  ?  Do  not  the  facts  I  have  stated  fully  prove,  that 
the  measures  adopted  by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  to  prevent 
ministerial  exchanges  with  unitarians,  are  oppressive,  tyrannical,  and 
unchristian  ?  Do  they  not  also  fully  prove,  that  these  measures  are 
subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Con- 
gregationalism ?  I  must  conclude  that  both  propositions  are  perfectly 
demonstrated. 

III.  Ecclesiastical  Tribunals. 

In  the  third  place,  I  wish  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  various 
ecclesiastical  tribunals  of  the  orthodox  denomination.  I  believe  the 
facts  I  shall  adduce  under  this  head  will  prove  the  two  following  pro- 
positions. First,  that  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  have  attempted 
to  establish,  and  in  several  instances  have  actually  established,  eccle- 
siastical tribunals,  so  that  the  supposed  errors  and  mistakes  of  min- 
isters and  private  Christians  might  be  tried  and  punished  as  heresies  ; 
that  is,  as  crimes.  And  secondly,  that  such  tribunals  are  subversive 
of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregation- 
alism. My  limits  will  permit  me  to  notice  but  five  different  classes 
of  examples  of  this  description. 

1.  Consociations  established.  First.  Look  to  the  consociations  of 
churches  in  Connecticut.  In  each  county,  all  those  churches  so  dis- 
posed form  themselves  into  a  consociation.  The  power  of  settling  all 
ecclesiastical  difficulties  is  thus  surrendered  by  the  individual  churches 
into  the  hands  of  the  consociation.  Delegates  from  county  consocia- 
tions form  a  general,  State  consociation,  to  which  appeals  may  be 
made,  in  certain  cases,  from  the  county  consociations.  These  conso- 
ciations claim  the  right  of  calling  ministers  and  private  Christians  to 
account  for  their  honest  opinions,  and  of  punishing  them  for  their 
religious  sentiments.  I  will  mention  one  of  the  many  cases,  in  which 
a  consociation  has  exercised  its  usurped,  tyrannical,  and  unchristian 
power,  in  trying  and  punishing  a  most  exemplary  and  devoted  Chris- 
tian minister,  for  his  supposed  mistakes  and  errors. 

Take  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Abiel  Abbot.  In  1795,  he  was  ordained 
over  the  church  and  society  in  Coventry.  After  fifteen  years'  happy 
and  successful  ministry,  he  was  visited  by  a  majority  of  the  male  com- 
municants, because  a  few  of  them  had  expressed  dissatisfaction  with 
his  peculiar  religious  sentiments.  Like  an  honest  and  innocent  min- 
ister of  Jesus  Christ,  he  gave  them  an  explicit  statement  of  his  views 
of  the  gospel ;  and  expressed  a  willingness,  if  they  were  dissatisfied 
with  his  ministry,  to  have  his  pastoral  connexion  dissolved.  On  the 
thirteenth  of  September,  1810,  the  church  voted,  that  as  their  pastor 
neither  preached  nor  believed  certain  doctrines,  which  they  allowed 
were  incomprehensible  and  could  not  be  expressed  in  Scriptural  lan- 
guage, it  was  expedient  to  apply  to  the  association  of  ministers  in  their 
county,  for  advice.  The  association  advised  them  to  take  the  regular 
4 


26  LETTER  I. 

measures  for  convening  the  council  of  the  consociated  churches  in  the 
county  of  Tolland.  To  this  Mr.  Abbot  objected.  For  he  knew  noth- 
ing about  any  such  body  as  a  consociation  ;  and  if  one  existed,  he 
certainly  could  not  feel  himself  amenable  to  their  usurped  authority. 
He  expressed,  however,  a  perfect  readiness  to  submit  their  difficulties 
to  a  mutual  council ;  the  congregational  mo<ie  of  adjusting  disputes  be- 
tween pastor  and  people.  The  church  wished  to  follow  the  advice 
of  the  association  ;  but  the  society  objected,  and  wished  for  a  mutual 
council.  The  church  would  not  consent  to  a  mutual  council,  unless 
the  members  should  be  expressly  invited,  not  to  hear  and  give  advice 
respecting  their  troubles,  but  to  dissolve  the  pastoral  relation.  This 
would  be  in  fact  surrendering  every  ministerial  right  to  the  disaffected 
church.  To  this,  neither  Mr.  Abbot  nor  his  society  could  honorably 
submit.  Accordingly,  a  body  of  clergy  assembled  in  Coventry  on  the 
sixteenth  of  April,  1811,  calling  themselves  the  Consociation  of  Tolland 
County  ;  and  forthwith  summoned  Mr.  Abbot  to  answer  before  them  on 
the  charge  of  heresy. 

The  Rev.  Abiel  Abbot  appeared  before  this  self-constituted  ecclesi- 
astical court,  not  to  acknowledge  their  right  or  power  to  call  him  to 
account  for  his  honest  religious  opinions,  but  to  protest  against  their 
usurped  authority.     He  advanced  the  most  convincing  and  conclusive 
arguments  to  prove,  that  he  was  not  amenable  to  their  tribunal.     Still 
they  heeded  no  remonstrance.     They  were  resolved  upon  his  condem- 
nation.    They  proceeded  with  his  trial  in  opposition  to  his  consent. 
And  what  were  the  charges  preferred  against  this  religious  criminal  ? 
The  three  following.     "  That  the   Rev.   Abiel   Abbot  does  neither 
preach  nor  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  sacred  Trinity  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  Godhead.      That  he  does  neither  preach  nor 
believe  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ ;    that  he  is  both  God  and  man 
united  in  the  Person  of  Mediator.      That  he  does  neither  preach  nor 
believe  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  made  for  sin  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  justification  of  sinners  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
iinptUed  to  them,  and  received   by  faith  in  him."     Such  were   the 
weighty  accusations.     These  charges  were  substantiated  by  satisfac- 
tory evidence.    "  The  general  question  was  tlien  put.  Is  the  Rev.  Abiel 
Abbot  guilty  of  the  facts  alleged   in   the   complaints  of  the  church 
against  him  ?     Voted  unanimously  in  the  affirmative."    Then  comes 
the  dreadful  sentence  of  condemnation.     Before  I  record  this  expres- 
uon  of  orthodox  intolerance,  which  must  remain  an  everlasting  dis- 
grace to  this  self-constituted  court,  let  mo  observe,  that  a  more  peace- 
able, studious,  sincere,  humble,  righteous,  and  pious  Cliristian  minister 
was  not  then  to  be  found  within  the  borders  of  that  state.     Now  let  us 
have  the  concentrated  wrath  of  the  consociation  of  Tolland  county. 
"  Voltdf  lliut  tin  man  who  ntithtr  believes  nor  preaches  the  doctrines  speci- 
fied in  the  articles  of  the  eharge^  is  DisquALiFicv  for  the  office  of 


LETTER  I.  27 

THE  GOSPEI.  ministry;  FOR  HE  HAS  ESSENTIALLY  RENOUNCED  THE 
SCRIPTURES,  HAS  MADE  SHIPWRECK  OF  THE  FAITH  ONCE  DELIVERED 
TO  THE  SAINTS,  HAS  DENIED  THE  MESSIAH  OF  THE  GOSPEL,  WHO 
IS  THE  TRUE  GOD  AND  ETERNAL  LIFE,  AND  CANNOT  PREACH  TO  SIN- 
NERS, ACCORDING  TO  THE  REAL  MEANING  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES,  JESUS 
CHRIST  AND  HIM  CRUCIFIED,  WHO  IS  THE  ONLY  WAY  OF  SALVATION, 
NOR    FEED    THE    CHURCH    OF    GOD    WHICH    HE     HAS     PURCHASED    WITH 

HIS  OWN  BLOOD."  —  "  And  they  hereby  declare^  that  the  ministerial  rela- 
tion between  the  Rev.  Abiel  Abbot  and  the  first  church  of  Christ  in  Coven- 
try ought  to  be,  and  is,  dissolved.  And  they  do  hereby  revoke  the  commis- 
sion given  to  him  by  his  ordination  to  preach  the  gospel  and  administer 
the  ordinances  of  the  same.^^ 

Can  you  believe,  that  such  are  the  proceedings  of  some  twenty  dis- 
tinguished orthodox  Christians,  in  this  period  of  the  world  and  in  this 
enlightened  portion  of  our  country  ?  I  must  confess,  the  fact  would 
surpass  my  belief,  if  the  evidence  was  not  before  my  eyes.  And  is 
not  this  calling  a  worthy  minister  to  account  for  his  honest  opinions, 
and  punishing  them  as  heresies,  that  is,  as  crimes  ?  Can  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  be  guilty  of  a  more  heinous  offence  in  the  estimation  of 
I  the  Christian  public,  than  renouncing  the  Scriptures,  denying  the  Mes- 
siah, making  shipwreck  of  the  true  faith,  and  disqualifying  himself  to 
preach  either  to  saints  or  sinners  ?  Can  you  inflict  a  punishment  more 
severe  on  a  conscientious  preacher  of  Jesus  Christ,  than  to  make  the 
community  believe,  that  such  accusations  are  really  true  ?.  But  this  is 
not  the  worst  of  the  case.  This  outrageous  deed  was  sanctioned,  the 
next  year,  by  the  whole  body  of  orthodox  clergy  in  Connecticut.  Yes  ; 
at  a  meeting  of  the  General  Association  of  the  state,  the  following  re- 
solves were  presented  by  the  Rev.  Doctors  Dwight  and  Beecher,  and 
unanimously  adopted  by  the  body.  "  Res.  iv.  That  in  the  late  pro- 
ceedings at  Coventry,  the  elders  and  churches  in  Tolland  county  have, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  General  Association,  borne  a  judicious,  faith- 
ful,  AND    HIGHLY    COMMENDABLE    TESTIMONY    TO    THE    TRUTH  AS   IT 

IS  IN  JESUS.  Res.  V.  That,  according  to  the  firm  belief  of  this 
General  Association,  a  denial  of  the  deity  of  Christ  is  heresy.  Res.  vi. 
That  the  exclusion  from  christian  communion,  and  from 
the  ministerial  office,  for  heresy,  is^  neither  an  attempt 
to  bind  the  conscience  in  matters  of  faith,  nor  a  violation 
OF  CHRISTIAN  CHARITY;  but  an  ttct  lohich  that  charity  impcriously  de- 
mands ;  and  an  article  of  discipline,  which  the  principles  q/* 
agreement  among  the  consociated  churches  require  them  to  perform^  To 
mo  it  is  truly  incredible,  that  the  whole  body  of  orthodox  clergy  could 
have  passed  such  resolutions  only  eighteen  years  since  ;  and  resolves, 
too,  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Beecher,  and  doubtless  sanctioned  by  your  own 
vote.  We  here  perceive  most  sensibly  our  danger.  You  pronounce 
this  conduct  of  the  consociation,  judicious,  faithful,  and  highly  com- 


28  LETTER  I. 

mendable.  Had  you  Connecticut  gentlemen  the  power,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  but  you  would  perform  deeds  of  the  sarao  judicious,  faithful, 
and  highly  commendable  character  in  Massachusetts.  There  can  be 
no  doubt,  that  you  would  depose  all  unitarian  ministers  forthwith, 
and  pronounce  upon  them  the  same  sentence  of  condemnation  and  ex- 
clusion, although  a  majority  of  their  congregations  should  wish  them 
to  remain.  But  thanks  to  Almighty  God,  Connecticut  ministers  do  not 
rule  in  Massachusetts ;  and  what  demands  our  gratitude  still  more, 
they  never  will  tyrannize  over  her  free  and  independent  citizens. 

Now  this  is  but  one  of  the  several  cases  of  a  similar  character 
which  have  occurred  in  Connecticut.  I  think  there  have  been  four  or 
five  ministers  who  renounced  orthodoxy,  and  were  excommunicated 
and  punished  for  their  heresy.  The  circumstances,  in  relation  to  the 
Rev.  Luther  Wilson,  who  was  driven  from  Brooklyn  by  the  conso 
ciation  of  that  county,  were  of  a  much  more  aggravated  character  in 
several  particulars.  But  my  limit§  will  not  permit  me  to  relate  the 
case  as  I  intended  and  had  written  it  Even  to  read  over  all  these 
instances  of  orthodox  usurpation  and  tyranny,  is  enough  to  make  one's 
blood  run  cold  ;  especially  if  he  has  been  educated  in  this  Common- 
wealth. I  well  know,  that  great  allowances  should  be  made  for  those 
of  you  who  have  been  reared  in  Connecticut.  For  the  very  laws, 
under  which  you  were  trained,  taught  you  to  regard  unitarianism  as 
a  heinous  crime.  To  prove  the  truth  of  this  assertion,  I  will  'make 
one  extract  from  your  criminal  code. 

"  Act  for  the  punishment  of  divers  capital  and  other  felonies.  Sec. 
VIII.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  if  any  person  within  this  state 
having  been  educated  in,  or  having  made  profession  of  the  Christian 
religion,  shall,  by  writing,  printing,  teaching,  or  advised  speaking,  de- 
ny the  being  of  a  God,  or  any  one  of  the  Persons  in  the  Trinity  to  he 
God;  or  shall  assert  and  maintain  that  there  are  more  gods  than  one  ; 
or  shall  deny  the  Christian  religion  to  be  true ;  or  the  holy  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  true;  and  be  thereof  lawfully 
convicted  before  any  of  the  Superior  Courts  of  this  state,  shall,  for  the 
first  offence,  be  incapable  to  have  or  enjoy  any  offices  or  employments, 
ecclesiastical,  civil,  or  military,  or  any  part  in  them,  or  any  profit  by 
them.  And  the  offices,  places,  and  employments,  enjoyed  by  such 
persons  at  their  conviction,  shall  be  void.  —  Sec.  ix.  And  such  person 
being  a  second  time  convicted  of  any  of  the  aforesaid  crimes,  shall 
be  disabled  to  sue,  prosecute,  plead,  or  maintain  any  action  or  infor- 
mation in  law  or  equity ;  or  be  guardian  of  any  child,  or  executor 
of  any  will,  or  administrator  of  any  estate." 

This  law  sounds  harsh  in  my  ears.  But  let  us  have  the  comment 
on  this  act  by  the  late  Judge  Swift  of  your  state.  His  work  is  en- 
titled a  System  of  Laws  of  the  State  of  Connecticut.  Chapter  VH. 
is  on  cnmes  against  religion.     These   are  seven.      **  L  Blasphemy. 


LETTER  I.  2^ 

II.  Atheism.  III.  Polytheism.  IV".  Ujcitarianism.  V.  Apostasy. 
VI.  Breach  of  Sabbath.  VII.  Profane  Swearing."  On  the  fourth 
crime  the  learned  Judge  thus  remarks.  "  IV-  Unitarianism,  or  de- 
nial of  the  Trinity,  is,  where  a  Christian,  by  education  or  profession, 
denies,  either  by  writing,  printing,  teaching,  or  advised  speaking,  that 
any  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  is  God.  As  a  punishment  for  this 
crime,  the  statute  enacts,  that,  on  conviction  for  the  first  offence,  the 
offender  shall  be  incapable  to  have  or  enjoy  any  offices  or  employ- 
ments, ecclesiastical,  civil,  or  military,  or  any  part  in  them,  or  profit 
by  them ;  and  the  offices,  places,  and  employments,  enjoyed  by  such 
offenders  at  the  timie  of  conviction,  shall  be  void.  On  a  second  con- 
viction, such  person  is  disabled  tb  sue,  prosecute,  plead,  or  maintain 
any  action  in  law  or  equity,  or  to  be  guardian,-  executor,  or  admin- 
istrator." 

Now  we  must  remember,  that  it  is  scarcely  more  than  a  quarter 
of  a  century  since  a  committee  was  chosen  to  revise  the  laws  of  the 
state,  and  expunge  every  thing  inconsistent  with  liberty  of  conscience  ; 
and  that  this  law  was  left  untouched  as  containing  nothing  incom- 
patible with  religious  freedom.  We  must  also  recollect,  that  it  is 
scarcely  a  dozen  years  since  the  law  was  repealed.  I  suppose  you, 
and  Dr.  Beecher,  and  the  other  gentlemen  who  have  been  invited 
from  Connecticut  to  teach  theology  in  this  Commonwealth,  regard  all 
these  enactments,  as  well  as  the  proceedings  of  the  consociations, 
judicious,  faithful,  and  highly  commendable.  But  for  one,  I  confess, 
that  I  consider  them  oppressive,  tyrannical,  and  abominably  wicked. 
And  I  cannot  feel  sufficiently  thankful,  that  a  brighter  day  is  dawning 
on  Connecticut.  The  spirit  of  religious  liberty  is  spreading  among  her 
inhabitants  ;  and  not  a  few  of  her  most  worthy  children  have  embraced 
liberal  views  of  theology.  The  blood  of  the  martyrs  will  there  prove 
the  seed  of  the  true  church.  But  this  does  not  weaken  my  conclu- 
sion, that  the  measures  of  the  consociations  are  subversive  of  free 
inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism. 

2.  Attempts  to  establish  Consociations.  Secondly.  Look  at  some  of  the 
attempts,  which  have  been  made  by  orthodox  leaders,  to  introduce 
the  Connecticut  system  of  consociations  into  the  congregational 
churches  of  this  Commonwealth.  I  have  room  to  notice  but  three 
cases  of  this  character.  And,  Jirst,  I  will  mention  the  attempt  of  the 
orthodox  clergy  in  the  western  part  of  Massachusetts.  As  I  have  a 
copy  of  the  plan  of  consociations,  submitted  to  the  churches  for  their 
adoption,  I  will  give  you  the  introduction  and  conclusion  of  the  com- 
munication. Here  is  the  preamble.  "  Whereas,  in  the  opinion  of  a 
number  of  ministers  and  delegates,  chosen  from  the  several  churches, 
met  in  convention  in  Shelburne,  August  10,  1808,  the  present  state 
of  the  churches  in  this  quarter  calls  for  such  union  and  co-operation 
in  matters  relating  to  the  common  interests  of  religion,  as  have  not 


30  LETTER  I. 

hitherto  deen  devised  and  improved,  and  that  it  is  desirable  to  adopt 
measures  to  promote  Christian  knowledge  and  communion,  the  conven- 
tion unanimously  agreed  to  submit  the  follotting  plan  of  consociation 
to  be  inspected  by  the  churches,  and  adopted  by  tliem,  provided  it  meet 
their  approbation.  They  are  tlie  ratlier  encouraged  to  do  this,  from 
an  assurance,  thai  similar  inslitutioTis  in  divers  parts  of  the  country  art 
found  to  be  of  real  service  in  the  cause  of  religion."  Yes  ;  similar  insti- 
tutions then  existed  in  a  sister  State,  and  held  themselves  ready  to  bear 
a  "judicious,  faithful,  and  most  commendable  testimony  to  the  truth  as 
it  is  in  Jesus."  And  so  the  true  orthodox  in  this  commonwealth  wish 
to  adopt  the  same  measures  for  suppressing  error  and  punishing  here- 
tics. As  there  are  no  very  peculiar  features  in  the  eleven  articles  of 
this  plan  of  consociation,  and  as  I  shall  hereafter  have  occasion  to  notice 
similar  proposals,  I  shall  omit  all  extracts  from  the  proposed  rules,  and 
give  you  merely  the  conclusion.  These  are  the  words.  "  Since  the 
business  of  preparing  this  communication  and  forwarding  it  to  the 
churches  has  been  entrusted  with  the  undersigned,  and  also  to  transact 
other  matters  relative  to  the  same  object,  they  have  to  request  the 
several  churches  to  which  these  letters  shall  be  sent,  that  they  will  use 
all  convenient  expedition  to  make  up  theiV  minds  relative  to  the  matter 
now^laid  before  them,  that  if  insurmountahle  obstacles  do  not  lie  in  the 
way,  their  result  may  be  obtained,  and  a  copy  of  it  returned  to  some 
one  of  us,  as  early  as  the  last  of  October  next."  The  churches  found 
no  insurmountable  obstacles  in  returning  their  results  in  season.  Their 
members  had  not  lived  under  a  law  which  punished  unitarianism  as  a 
heinous  crime.  They  had  breathed  the  invigorating  atmosphere  of 
Christian  liberty ;  and  with  one  accord,  they  rejected  the  proposed  plan 
of  consociation  with  disdain.  They  saw  the  design  of  some  of  the 
clergy  to  bring  them  into  servitude  ;  and  tliey  spurned  the  yoke  of 
bondage  from  them  with  manly  fortitude.  So  that  all  this  labor  of  the 
ministers  and  delegates  proved  vain,  and  worse  than  vain.  May  the 
descendants  of  such  churches  prove  themselves  wortliy  of  such 
fathers. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  a  second  attempt  of  a  similar  character,  made 
by  the  orthodox  Central  Association  of  Hampshire  county.  Tliis  learned 
body  had  witnessed  the  successful  measures  of  the  Connecticut  con- 
sociations in  chocking  the  progress  of  heresy,  and  in  silencing  and 
punishing  heretical  ministers.  They  wished  to  adopt  a  similar  mode 
of  warfare  to  keep  unitarianism  from  the  western  part  of  this  common- 
wealtli.  Accordingly  a  plan  for  a  consociation  was  drawn  up  and  sent 
to  the  churches  for  their  adoption.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Willard,  then  of 
Deerficld,  like  a  faithful  watchman,  sounded  tlic  alarm,  and  fully  ex- 
posed Uie  iniquity  of  the  measure,  lie  published  a  review  of  the 
proposed  plan  in  the  form  of  a  handbill,  and  was  tlius  an  instrument  in 
the  hands  of  Providence,  of  preserving  tlic  churches  in  that  county  from 


LETTER  I.  31 

slavery.  One  or  two  extracts  from  this  "judicious,  faithful,  and  most 
commendable  testimony  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  will  make  you 
acquainted  with  the  proposed  plan  of  consociation.  "  At  the  first  dash, 
it  is  proposed  in  effect,  or  what  may  be  effect,  that  the  churches  should 
expunge  from  the  bill  of  their  religious  rights  the  precious  privilege  of 
choosing  their  own  ministers,  and  of  course  cease  to  be  congregational. 
The  consociation  may  always  prevent  their  settling  the  man  of  their 
choice ;  and,  when  they  already  have  such  a  one  settled,  he  will  be 
liable  at  any  time  to  be  torn  from  them,  though  it  should  be  like  pluck- 
ing out  their  eyes  ;  and  further,  if  they  should  have  a  man  settled,  who 
turns  out  to  be  ever  so  unworthy  and  disagreeable,  it  will  be  in  the 
power  of  the  consociation  to  prevent  dismission,  and  impose  him  on  the 
people  to  the  day  of  his  death.  To  demonstrate  all  this  and  something 
more,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  recite  the  sixth  and  seventh  articles." 
Then  come  the  articles,  an  extract  from  which  I  will  now  give. 
"  Art.  VI.  In  all  cases  of  ecclesiastical  order  and  discipline,  arising 
within  the  limits  of  the  consociated  churches,  it  shall  be  the  duty  and 
business  of  the  council  to  afford  their  aid,  particularly  in  ordaining 
pastors  over  the  churches,  in  hearing  and  acting  upon  charges  against 
a  pastor  or  a  church,  or  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  in  deciding  ques- 
tions relating  to  the  dismission  of  a  pastor  from  his  charge  !  "  —  "  It  is 
however  understood,  that  any  associated  church  may,  if  they  please, 
upon  nomination  of  the  pastor  elect,  choose  two  or  three  pastors,  who, 
with  delegates  of  their  churches,  may  sit  and  act  in  the  council  at  the 
settlement  of  a  minister  !  "  —  "  Art.  VII.  To  save  trouble  and  expense, 
a  church  may  call  in  to  their  assistance  in  settling  a  pastor,  and  also 
in  cases  of  controversy  and  discipline,  a  council  of  the  consociated 
churches  of  any  number,  not  less  than  six  churches,  nor  more  than  half 
the  whole  number  consociated  !  "  On  these  articles,  the  Doctor  thus 
remarks.  "  Comparing  these  two  articles,  we  see  that  in  respect  to  all 
ordinations,  the  consociation  is  to  have  at  least  six  votes  where  the 
church  concerned  has  but  three,  which,  if  they  should  ever  be  disposed 
to  use  it,  will  give  them  an  absolute  control  over  the  church!" 
I  trust  this  is  sufficient  to  convince  you,  that  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox 
in  the  western  part  of  this  Commonwealth  have  attempted  several  times 
to  introduce  the  Connecticut  system  of  consociations  into  our  congre- 
gational churches.  In  both  instances,  their  plan  of  usurpation  and 
tyranny  was  rejected  by  the  churches.  But  this  does  not  relieve  the 
clergy  from  the  charge  of  having  attempted  to  establish  ecclesiastical 
courts,  so  that  the  supposed  mistakes  and  errors  of  ministers  and  pri- 
vate Christians  might  be  tried  and  punished  as  heresies,  that  is,  as 
crimes. 

As  a  third  attempt  of  a  similar  character,  I  refer  you  to  the  famous 
undertaking  of  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  in  1815.  They  then 
made    a  desperate   effort   to   establish  consociations  throughout  this 


32  LETTER  I. 

Commonwealth.  This  was  so  bold  and  daring,  that  I  must  give  it  a 
full  consideration.  And  as  you  have  deliberately  denied  the  existence 
of  any  such  attempt,  I  shall  feel  obliged  to  relate  most  of  the  particulars 
of  the  case.  In  1814,  a  body  of  ortliodox  ministers  assembled  in  Dor- 
chester. There  were  twenty-four  belonging  to  this  Conmionwealth, 
as  delegates  from  twelve  ministerial  associations.  They  called  them- 
selves the  general  association  of  Massachusetts ;  by  what  right  or 
authority  I  am  unable  to  determine.  There  were  also  present  two 
delegates  from  the  Presbyterian  church ;  and  two  from  each  of  the 
orthodox  conventions  of  Connecticut,  Vermont,  and  New  Hampshire. 
Some  of  the  leaders  of  the  Massachusetts  delegation  wished  to  intro- 
duce the  Connecticut  system  of  consociations;  but  they  well  knew 
that  an  open  avowal  of  their  design  would  be  rejected  by  many  of  their 
own  denomination.  They  accordingly  commenced  their  undertaking  by 
passing  the  following  votes.  "  Voted,  to  hear  and  take  order  upon 
the  measures  proposed  in  an  ancient  document,  prepared  '  to  serve  the 
great  intentions  of  religion,  which  is  lamentably  decaying  in  the  coun- 
try,' by  the  ministers  of  Massachusetts,  convened  in  Boston  in  the  year 
1704,  5,  and  6."  The  following  vote  was  then  passed  unanimously. 
"  Whereas  an  ancient  document  has  been  presented  to  this  association, 
containing  an  answer  to  the  question,  *  What  further  steps  are  to  be 
taken  that  councils  may  have  their  due  constitution  and  efficacy,  in 
supporting,  preserving,  and  well  ordering  the  interests  of  the  churches 
in  this  country  ? '  and  assented  to  by  the  delegates  of  the  associations 
met  according  to  former  agreement  at  Boston,  September  13th,  1705, 
and  '  further  approved  and  confirmed  by  a  general  convention  of  min- 
isters at  Boston,  30th  3d  month,  1706 '  —  Voted,  that  a  committee  of 
seven  be  chosen  by  ballot,  to  inquire  into  tlie  history  of  the  above- 
mentioned  document;  and  particularly  to  ascertain,  whether  the  re- 
solves it  contains  were  carried  into  execution  at  the  time,  and  to  what 
extent ;  and  to  report  at  the  next  annual  meeting  of  this  association,  on 
the  expedienn/  of  a  recommendation  by  this  body  of  the  plan  of  discipline 
titerein  proposed,  either  entire,  or  with  alterations  and  amendments,  to  the 
consideration  of  the  associations  and  churches  in  our  connexion.  Rev. 
Jedidiah  Morse,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Samuel  Austin,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Leonard 
Woods,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Samuel  Worcester,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Enoch  Hale,  Rev. 
Joseph  Lyman,  D.  D.,  and  the  Rev.  Timothy  M.  Cooley,  were  chosen 
a  committee  for  the  purpose  above  specified."  Such  was  the  display, 
and  caution,  and  management  necessary  to  bring  forward  the  proposed 
change  in  the  government  of  our  congregational  churches. 

After  the  passing  of  these  votes,  the  publishing  committee  were 
directed  to  print  and  distribute  a  hundred  and  fifly  copies  of  the  min- 
utes of  the  association.  They  performed  tiie  specified  duty,  and 
appended  to  the  minutes  a  copy  of  the  famous  document  They  assure 
us  that  it  has  never  before  been  published  to  their  knowledge,  and 


LETTER  I.  33 

that  it  is  "  an  invaluable  relic  of  our  pious  forefathers."  Now  the 
history  of  this  invaluable  relic  is  soon  related.  It  was  a  plan  for  the 
destruction  of  our  congregational  form  of  church  government,  drawn 
up  by  Cotton  Mather,  and  raked  out  of  his  musty  papers.  It  was 
printed  soon  after  it  was  written,  by  the  Rev.  John  Wise,  of  Ipswich. 
It  was  recommended  to  the  adoption  of  the  churches  in  that  early 
period,  and  by  them  quickly  rejected.  And  why  ?  Let  Cotton  Mather 
answer  for  himself.  "  There '  were  some  very  considerahle  persons 
among  the  ministers,  as  ivell  as  of  the  brethren,  ivho  thought  the  liberties 
of  particular  churches  to  be  in  danger  of  being  limited  and  infringed  by 
its  adoption.  In  deference  to  these,  the  proposals  were  never  prosecuted 
beyond  the  bounds  of  mere  proposals."  All  this  should  have  been 
known  to  some  one  or  more  of  the  general  association  who  make  such 
pretences  to  an  acquaintance  with  the  proceedings  of  our  Pilgrim 
fathers.  Still  all  this  parade  and  artifice  were  necessary  to  keep  the 
suspicions  of  the  free  people  of  this  State  in  profound  quiet,  and  receive 
the  attention  and  co-operation  of  the  more  liberal  of  the  orthodox 
denomination. 

Well,  this  said  general  association  met  at  Royalston  on  the  27th  of 
June,  1815.  The  chairman  of  the  great  and  learned  committee  for 
inquiring  into  the  history  of  the  invaluable  document,  informs  the  body, 
"  that  they  have  attended  deliberately  and  prayerfully  to  the  weighty  and 
very  important  business  committed  to  them,  and  respectfully  submit  the 
following  Report."  As  it  regards  the  use  to  be  made  of  this  document, 
they  declare  that  its  proposals  are  such  as  congregational  ministers 
cannot  consistently  recommend  or  approve.  They  proceed  to  offer  sev- 
eral reasons,  why  a  reform  was  greatly  needed  in  the  congregational 
churches  in  Massachusetts.  I  must  give  a  passing  notice  to  these  very 
powerful  reasons.  Speaking  of  the  old  system  of  clerical  discipline, 
they  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  general  association  to  those 
evils  in  our  ecclesiastical  state,  which  affect  churches  and  ministers  in 
their  public  character,  and  in  their  relation  to  each  other.  After  stating 
that  churches  have  a  relation  to  each  other,  and  ought  to  have  min- 
isterial and  church  fellowship  with  each  other,  they  assert  that  this 
principle  is  practically  disregarded.  They  then  specify  sundry  other 
existing  evils.  And,  First,  a  neglect  of  discipline  towards  offending  mem- 
bers of  churches,  and  the  difficulty  of  going  through  a  regular  course  of 
discipline  when  attempted.  They  assert,  that  the  principal  thing  which 
has  a  tendency  to  increase  and  perpetuate  this  evil,  is  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  sacred  principle  of  fellowship  among  the  churches.  In 
maintaining  this  discipline  over  its  members,  every  church  needs  the 
support  of  every  other  church.  They  dwell  much  and  long  on  this 
great  evil.  But  the  amount  of  all  their  remarks  seems  to  me  to  be 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  this  ;  —  there  should  be  such  a  union  of  the 

5 


34  LETTER  I. 

churches  as  that  their  poxoer  should  be  felt  through  the  wholt  country ; 
and  not  the  power  of  persuasion,  but  the  power  of  coercion. 

Seco7idly,  the  committee  complain,  that  there  is  no  regular  and  ac- 
knowledfrtd  method  in  which  cons^regational  churches  can  exercise  a  Chris- 
tian watch  and  care  over  ecLch  other.  This  is  indeed  a  most  singular 
objection.  A  committee  of  congregational  ministers  loudly  complain, 
that  there  is  no  regular  method  by  which  authority  may  he  exercised 
over  sister  churches!!  Why,  the  very  essence  of  Congregationalism, 
the  single  and  peculiar  characteristic  which  distinguished  the  Inde- 
pendents from  the  Presbyterians,  was  their  utter  and  entire  rejection 
of  all  authority  or  jurisdiction  of  one  church  over  another  !  But,  say 
this  learned  committee,  "  A  church  as  well  as  an  individual  may  apos- 
tatize from  the  common  faith,  and  fall  into  disorders  incompatible  with 
the  Christian  character.  If  such  be  the  fact  with  any  church,  can 
other  churches  in  fellowship  be  indifferent  ?  It  is  the  duty  of  a  church 
in  every  such  case  to  submit  to  an  investigation,  and  be  ready  to  give 
every  reasonable  satisfaction.  But  so  distracted  is  the  state  of  our 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  so  vague,  and  loose,  and  weak  the  principle  of 
union,  that  churches  in  our  fellowship  may  go  to  the  greatest  lengths  of 
apostasy  without  any  inspection,  and  without  losing  that  indefinite  fel- 
lowship with  us  which  they  before  enjoyed  ! "  O  dreadful !  Why  not 
use  plain  language  ?  What  was  the  real  cause  of  all  this  whining  ? 
Why,  some  sixty  or  seventy  churches  in  the  congregational  connexion 
had  gradually  adopted  new,  and  as  they  sincerely  believed,  better  views 
of  Christian  truth.  There  was  not  in  Massachusetts,  there  never  had 
been,  a  power  to  call  a  whole  church  to  account  for  its  opinions,  its 
heresies,  its  damnable  heresies,  if  you  so  please  to  call  them.  Our 
ancestors  thought  that  every  church  had  a  right  to  examine  and  judge 
for  itself  concerning  religious  opinions.  They  did  not  admit  that  other 
churches  could  call  any  particular  church  to  account  for  its  sentiments. 
Hence  when  this  new,  and  better,  and  more  Scriptural  doctrine  began 
to  prevail,  the  intolerant  majority  of  the  congregational  clergy  looked 
into  the  usages  of  our  ancestors,  and  found  to  their  dismay  no  power 
on  the  part  of  the  majority  to  deal  with  the  offenders  after  the  manner 
of  Rome,  or  the  general  assembly  of  Scotland,  or  even  the  consociated 
churches  of  Connecticut.  And  hence  the  appointment  of  this  com- 
mittee, with  its  bitter  lamentations,  and  its  truly  papal  recommenda- 
tions. 

The  third  objection,  which  this  committee  make  to  the  old  system  of 
church  discipline,  is  "  the  want  of  a  settled  and  effectual  method  of  calling 
ministers  to  account  for  immorality  and  error,  and  of  protecting  them 
against  calumny  and  injustice"  Now  what  is  the  real  meaning  of  all 
this  ?  There  was  never  any  defect  in  the  means  of  calling  a  minister 
to  account  by  his  owti  people  or  his  own  church,  to  whom  alone  he  is 
amenable.    But  there  was  no  provision  by  which  the  Old  South  church 


LETTER  I.  35 

could  bring  Dr.  Channing  to  trial  before  a  tribunal,  selected  at  Ando- 
ver  or  New  Haven,  for  erroneous  opinions,  by  him  advanced  in  a  pub- 
lished or  unpublished  discourse,  with  which  his  own  church  and  people 
were  delighted.  I  must  believe  that  this  was  the  true  foundation  of 
the  complaint.  For  the  committee  well  knew,  that  each  church  and 
society  had  always  enjoyed  a  sufficient  and  perfect  remedy  as  to  its 
own  pastor,  under  our  ecclesiastical  constitution  ;  a  remedy  which  our 
courts  of  law  would  enforce.  They  also  well  knew,  that  the  old  sys- 
tem of  mutual  councils  would  be  urged  as  a  sufficient  remedy  *,  and 
accordingly  they  proceed  to  abuse  this  mode  of  trial,  in  such  a  manner 
and  with  such  a  spirit,  as  shows  their  utter  hostility  to  the  congrega- 
tional form  of  government.  "  It  is  not  to  mutual  councils  we  object," 
say  this  very  learned  committee,  "  but  to  the  mode  of  constituting 
them."  And  yet  the  mode  of  constituting  is  precisely  that  which  ren- 
ders them  mutual,  and  contains  their  only  merit.  I  hope  the  reader 
will  not  laugh  indiscreetly,  when  I  state  the  mode  in  which  mutual 
councils  are  proposed  to  be  improved.  It  is  this.  The  consociation  is, 
by  a  standing  covenant,  which  may  endure  for  centuries,  to  be  consti- 
tuted the  council,  and  for  that  reason  to  be  called  mutual  !  What 
a  mockery !  With  equal  reason  you  may  affirm,  that,  our  ancestors 
having  provided  for  a  Supreme  Court,  that  court  is  to  be  considered  a 
board  of  referees,  to  which  all  future  parties,  to  the  end  of  time,  are 
to  be  presumed  to  have  agreed  mutually  to  submit  their  controversies. 
Such  are  the  subtilties  of  orthodox  divines,  by  which  they  first  impose 
on  themselves  and  then  on  others.  The  committee  conclude  their 
report  with  proposing  "a  plan  of  ecclesiastical  order." 

Well,  Sir,  after  this  elaborate  report  had  been  read,  the  Association 
chose  the  Rev.  Drs.  Morse,  Codman,  and  Woods,  a  committee  to  have 
it  printed  and  circulated  in  the  several  associations  in  their  connexion, 
"for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  public  sentiment  respecting  the  plan 
of  ecclesiastical  order  therein  presented."  And  what  is  the  character  of 
this  new  plan  ?  The  committee  recommend,  that  the  churches  shall 
explicitly  adopt  and  put  in  practice  the  following  articles  of  agreement.  — 
First,  the  propositions  of  the  synod  of  1662  are  acknowledged  as  the 
basis  of  consociations.  Secondly,  particular  consociations  shall  be  formed 
within  certain  limits.  In  this  article  there  is  a  wonderfully  generous 
provision,  that  churches  not  joining  the  consociation  shall  r^oi  be  treated 
as  parties.  Thirdly,  provision  is  made  for  the  regular  meetings  of  the 
new  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  Fourthly,  each  consociation  is  indulged  with 
the  privilege  of  choosing  its  own  moderator  and  scribe.  Fifthly,  this 
constitution  is  declared  to  be  the  constitution  of  all  consociations  in  the 
general  body  ;  yet  each  separate  consociation  has  the  privilege  of 
adopting  such  regulations  as  are  not  repugnant  to  this  constitution  ; 
that  is,  saving  in  all  cases  the  papal  power  and  supremacy.  Sixthly, 
by  this  extraordinary  article,  the  consociation  is  substituted  for  mutual 


36  LETTER  1. 

councils  in  all  ages,  and  without  the  express  consent  of  the  parties 
and  in  defiance  of  our  state  constitution  and  republican  principles,  is 
declared  to  be  the  legal  and  competent  tribunal  for  the  following  sol- 
emn purposes  :  —  to  hear  and  decide  upon  any  complaint  and  allegation 
touching  ministerial  character  against  any  minister  belonging  to  it ;  to 
acquit  or  Jind  guilty,  to  advise,  maintain,  or  depose,  as  the  case  may 
require.  Then  comes  the  quintessence  of  ecclesiastical  despotism.  It 
is  to  be  understood,  however,  that  any  consociation  may  provide,  upon 
principles  and  for  reasons  distinctly  to  be  made  known  to  them,  for 
cases  in  which  it  may  not  be  expedient  for  all  the  members  to  be  con- 
cerned ;  as  also  for  cases,  in  which  it  may  be  proper  for  others  not  of 
the  body,  to  be  admitted  to  sit  in  the  council.  Now,  what  are  the  true 
and  only  purposes  of  this  formal  and  technical  rule,  when  reduced  to 
plain  English  ?  Simply  these.  The  consociation  is,  to  all  future  time, 
made  by  a  fiction  the  mutual  choice  of  both  parties  ;  but  through  fear 
that  heresy  might  even  infect  the  consociation  itself,  it  is  provided,  that 
the  consociation  may  exclude  any  member  at  pleasure  from  any  trial, 
and  admit  others  not  members  of  the  particular  consociation  to  sit 
therein.  That  is,  it  is  permitted  to  each  consociation  in  all  cases  to 
pack  a  jury,  provided  it  be  for  the  justifiable  purpose  of  deposing  an 
heretical  minister.  There  was,  indeed,  a  right  of  appeal  to  two  or 
more  neighbouring  consociations,  except  for  private  church  members  ; 
they  were  to  be  condemned  without  appeal.  Such  is  a  bare  synopsis 
of  this  proposed  plan  of  ecclesiastical  order. 

Now  what  is  proved  by  the  history  of  this  report  ?  First,  that  the 
committee  who  drew  it  up  consisted  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  denomi- 
nation. Secondly,  that  they  approved  their  own  plan,  and  wished  it 
carried  into  execution.  Thirdly,  that  the  Association  so  far  approved  of 
its  scope,  design,  principles,  and  objects,  as  to  submit  it  to  the  associa- 
tions in  their  connexion.  And,  fourthly,  that  the  new  plan  of  ecclesi- 
astical order  contained  all  the  worst  features  of  the  Connecticut  system 
of  consociations.  It  is  indeed  astonishing,  that  Dr.  Woods  could  have 
had  the  folly  to  believe,  that  a  people,  who  had  so  long  enjoyed  the 
sweets  of  religious  liberty,  would  voluntarily  adopt  a  system,  by  which 
that  liberty  would  be  for  ever  sacrificed.  But  that  most  of  the  ortho- 
dox ministers  who  were  assembled  in  that  Association  should  have 
fallen  into  the  same  error,  does  indeed  surpass  belief  It  therefore 
requires  this  minute  and  authentic  recapitulation  of  the  facts  to  enable 
it  to  find  believers  at  a  period  of  fifteen  years  after  its  perpetration. 

And  how  was  this  plan  of  ecclesiastical  order  received  by  the  com- 
munity ?  With  marked  disapprobation.  It  produced  nearly  as  much 
talk  and  excitement  throughout  the  Commonwealth,  as  the  recent 
revolutions  in  Europe  are  now  producing  among  our  free  citizens.  Its 
adoption  was  opposed  by  all  classes  of  society  ;  and  especially  by  some 
distinguished  individuals  of  orthodox  sentiments.    Among  otliers,  one 


LETTER  I.  37 

of  the  founders  of  your  Seminary,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Spring  of  Newbury- 
port,  attacked  the  plan  with  great  power  and  success.  He  declares  in 
his  pamphlet,  that  "  the  plan  of  ecclesiastical  order  is  not  authorized 
by  reason  or  revelation ; "  that  it  is  not  "  friendly  to  the  liberty  and 
rights  of  conscience  ;  "  that  it  "  will  invest  clergymen  especially  with 
more  inJEluence  over  their  churches  than  they  ought  to  possess;"  that 
"  it  is  an  infringement  of  the  rights  of  distinct  branches  of  the  church 
and  of  individual  brethren  ; "  that  "  it  exceeds  the  plan  of  the  Fathers 
very  far  indeed,  by  placing  the  communion  of  churches  under  the  care 
and  management  of  standing  councils  or  consociations;  and  by  making 
all  ministers  in  the  connexion  amenable  directly  to  the  consociation, 
instead  of  their  own  church  and  occasional  councils  ;"  and  "  that,  if  it 
succeed,  it  will  introduce  a  revolution  amid  our  churches."  "  On  the 
whole,"  says  the  Doctor,  "  we  sincerely  think,  that  the  genius  and 
habits  of  the  good  people  of  this  State  are  so  averse  to  arbitrary  and 
aristocratic  government  or  domination,  that  the  measures  contemplated 
will  not  meet  that  share  of  public  approbation  which  promises  utility  to 
Zion."  Is  not  this  orthodox  authority  sufficient  to  convince  you  that 
Dr.  Channing  uttered  the  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  when  he 
published  the  following  sentence,  which  you  have  so  often  quoted  and 
ridiculed.  "  It  is  a  melancholy  fact,  that  our  long  established  congre- 
gational form  of  church  government  is  menaced,  and  tribunals  unknown 
to  our  churches,  and  unknown,  as  we  believe,  to  the  Scriptures,  are  to 
be  introduced  ;  and  introduced  for  the  very  purpose,  that  the  supposed 
errors  and  mistakes  of  ministers  and  private  Christians  may  be  tried  and 
punished  as  heresies  ;  that  is,  as  crimes."  The  writings  of  Dr.  Spring 
and  Dr.  Channing  did  much  to  awaken  pubhc  attention  to  the  threat- 
ened danger.  But  a  publication  of  the  Hon.  John  Lowell  produced  a 
much  greater  effect ;  because  it  gave  a  full  view  of  the  enormous  evils 
to  be  inflicted  on  the  churches  by  the  new  plan  of  ecclesiastical  order; 
and  because  it  was  published  in  several  different  parts  of  the  Common- 
wealth, and  in  this  manner  very  generally  circulated  through  the  com- 
munity. So  that  this  wonderful  child  of  many  fathers  barely  breathed 
to  expire  under  the  maledictions  of  a  free  Christian  people.  It  was  so 
detested  by  the  intelligent  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  that  it  was  stran- 
gled in  its  very  birth.  And  its  fond  parents  found  but  few  to  sympa- 
thize with  them  under  its  early  and  sudden  destruction. 

I  presume.  Sir,  you  are  now  ready  to  acknowledge,  that  an  attempt 
was  made  by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  in  eighteen  hundred 
and  fifteen,  to  change  the  government  of  our  congregational  churches, 
and  introduce  tribunals  hitherto  unknown  to  them,  so  that  the  errors 
and  mistakes  of  ministers  and  Christians  might  be  tried  and  punished 
as  heresies ;  that  is,  as  crimes.  And  you  will  further  admit,  that  the 
plan  of  ecclesiastical  order  proposed  by  the  great  and  learned  orthodox 
committee,  is  subversive  of  religious  liberty,  free  inquiry,  and  the 


38  LETTER  I. 

principles  of  Congregationalism.  In  fact,  you  have  already  admitted 
this  in  your  letter  on  Religious  Liberty.  Now,  Sir,  permit  me  to  ask 
you  a  few  friendly  questions.  In  your  treatment  of  Dr.  Channing  on 
this  particular  point,  have  you  not  been  guilty  of  singular  unfairness^ 
Just  review  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  An  attempt  was  made  by 
the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party,  in  eighteen  hundred  and  fifteen,  to 
change  the  ecclesiastical  order  of  our  congregational  churches.  At 
the  very  time,  Dr.  Channing  wrote  an  able  article  to  prevent  its  suc- 
cess. Distinguished  men  of  orthodox  sentiments  entertained  similar 
views  of  the  design,  and  also  warned  the  community  to  guard  against 
the  threatened  danger.  By  such  noble  exertions,  a  great  excitement 
was  produced  throughout  the  Commonwealth,  and  the  nefarious 
attempt  was  blown  to  perdition.  After  fifteen  years,  Dr.  Channing 
collects  most  of  his  writings  into  a  large  volume  ;  and  among  other 
articles,  republishes  the  above  mentioned  essay,  taking  special  care  to 
date  it,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifteen.  In  that  essay,  he  simply  asserts 
what  every  body  knew  to  be  literally  true  at  the  time  of  publication. 
As  soon  as  this  volume  is  well  before  the  public,  with  much  blustering 
you  boldly  declare,  that  this  assertion  of  Dr.  Channing  is  not  true. 
You  bring  forward  the  quotation  several  times,  and  ridicule  the  idea  of 
any  such  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  orthodox.  You  treat  an  opinion 
of  fifteen  years'  standing,  which  was  an  undisputed  truth  at  the  time  of 
its  publication,  as  the  sentiment  of  the  present  year.  Is  not  this  most 
singular  unfairness  ?  And  what  excuse  can  you  ofier  for  such  an  out- 
rage upon  the  integrity  of  Dr.  Channing,  and  the  understanding  of  the 
community  ?  Will  you  aver,  that  you  were  wholly  ignorant  of  the  fact 
of  this  attempt  of  the  General  Association  7  —  that  you  were  not  at  that 
time  a  citizen  of  this  Commonwealth  ?  —  and  that  you  had  never  read 
the  publications  of  that  period  ?  Such  a  confession  would  be  one  kind 
of  apology,  but  not  such  an  one  as  will  be  satisfactory  to  intelligent 
men.  For  when  the  very  integrity  of  such  a  man  was  concerned,  had 
you  any  right  to  make  such  positive  assertions  without  one  word  of 
inquiry  as  to  their  truth  ?  And  how  can  you  reconcile  such  ignorance 
with  your  standing,  your  profession,  your  pretended  respect  for  the 
sincerity  and  greatness  of  Dr.  Channing  ?  How  can  you  assert,  that 
you  are  more  or  less  acquainted  with  a//,  against  whom  his  charges 
are  specially  directed,  and  never  have  asked  your  respected  friend  and 
colleague,  whether  there  was  any  foundation  for  the  declaration  of  Dr. 
Channing  ?  But  on  the  other  hand,  if  you  were  not  ignorant  of  the 
fact,  what  could  be  your  motive  for  charging  Dr.  Channing  with  uttering 
what  was  not  true  "?  Did  you  rely  upon  the  strong  hold  of  the  weak 
men  of  your  party  ?  —  upon  the  credulity  of  the  ignorant  and  bigoted, 
and  their  firu)  resolution  never  to  read  any  reply  which  might  be  made 
to  your  assertions  7  Did  you  expect  the  orthodox  to  adopt  this  course 
of  reasoning,  in  imitation  of  some  of  your  leaders  ?    "  Dr.  Channing 


LETTER  L  39 

made  an  assertion  as  to  the  attempted  measures  of  the  leaders  of  our 
denomination.  Mr.  Stuart  solemnly  charges  him  with  stating  what  is 
not  true.  Mr.  Stuart  must  known  the  truth,  because  he  declares  he  is 
acquainted  with  all  the  orthodox  against  whom  Dr.  Channing's  re- 
marks are  directed.  We  will  not,  therefore,  read  any  reply  which 
may  be  made  to  his  solemn  assertions  ;  for  the  answer  must  come  from 
an  unitarian,  or  from  an  orthodox  man  who  will  not  acknowledge  the 
infallibility  of  our  leaders  ;  and  such  men  are  unworthy  of  belief, 
because  they  must  be  either  unitarians,  or  worse  than  unitarians."  I 
have  no  doubt  this  course  of  reasoning  will  be  substantially  adopted 
by  numbers.  But,  Sir,  you  may  rest  assured,  that  you  have  mistaken 
the  orthodox  community,  if  you  expect  them  all  to  pursue  such  a 
course.  No ;  those  who  are  independent  will  sift  this  subject  to  the 
bottom,  and  they  will  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  in  this  particular  at 
least,  you  have  manifested  either  great  ignorance,  or  aggravated 
wickedness.  And  I  therefore  ask,  if  you  are  not  bound  by  every  obli- 
gation, human  and  divine,  either  to  make  a  public  acknowledgement 
of  your  ignorance  of  this  fact,  or  to  reconcile  your  knowledge  of  it  with 
your  printed  remarks  ;  either  to  retract  your  charges  of  falsehood 
against  Dr.  Channing,  or  to  prove  that  his  statement  was  not  true  when 
first  published? 

S.  Ecclesiastical  Councils.  Thirdly.  Look  at  the  proceedings  of  or- 
thodox ecclesiastical  councils.  When  assembled  for  specified  purposes 
they  have  converted  themselves  into  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  endeav- 
oured to  try  and  punish  their  ministerial  brethren  for  their  honest 
sentiments.  In  so  doing,  they  have  not  only  trampled  on  the  rights  of 
their  fellow  Christians,  but  have  openly  violated  principles  of  free  in- 
quiry, religious  liberty,  and  Congregationalism.  I  will  mention  three 
different  classes  of  violations.  And  Jirst,  take  those  cases,  in  which 
councils  have  been  invited  to  aid  in  the  ordination  of  congregational 
ministers.  In  1813  a  council  was  invited  by  the  church  and  society  in 
Greenfield,  to  assist  in  the  ordination  of  their  pastor  elect.  Among  this 
number  was  the  Rev.  Mr.  Willard  of  Deerfield.  A  large  minority 
were  unwilling  to  proceed  to  the  business  for  which  they  had  been 
convened,  because  they  could  do  nothing  which  should  be  considered 
an  act  of  fellowship  with  Mr.  Willard.  They  could  not  sit  in  council 
with  this  gentleman,  because  he  would  not  submit  to  be  catechized  by 
them  as  to  his  religious  opinions  ;  and  because  they  presumed  he  would 
not  assent  to  all  the  articles  of  their  human  formulary  of  faith.  After 
discussing  this  question  for  nearly  two  days,  and  increasing  the  ex- 
penses of  the  society  to  a  large  amount,  they  advised  the  church  and 
congregation  to  call  another  council ;  and  then  dissolved  their  meeting. 
Now  did  not  these  ministers  know  that  Mr.  Willard  was  to  be  on  the 
council  ?  Were  they  invited  to  pass  a  censure  on  his  ministerial  char- 
acter.'    Were  they  not    at  perfect  liberty  to    remain  at  home,  if 


4g  LETTER  I. 

they  could  not  peaceably  assist  the  church  in  the  ordination  ?  Here 
then  is  one  instance  in  which  an  ortliodox  council  neglected  the  duties 
for  which  they  had  been  assembled  ;  insulted  those  by  whose  invitation 
they  had  been  convcne<l,  and  endeavoured  to  injure  a  brother  minister 
for  a  fearless  maintenance  of  his  congregational  rights.  In  1821,  the 
congregational  society  in  Wareham  invited  a  council  to  aid  them  in 
ordaining-  a  pastor  elect.  Among  the  number  was  the  Rev.  Mr.  Good- 
win of  Sandwich.  It  was  known  that  he  had  embraced  unitarian  sen- 
timents. Accordingly  some  measure  must  be  devised  for  excluding  him 
from  the  council.  A  pretence  was  therefore  made  by  certain  orthodox 
leaders,  that  he  was  not  the  pastor  of  a  regularly  organized  church  ; 
when  the  Supreme  Court  liad  decided,  that  the  church  over  which  he 
was  settled,  was  the  first  congregational  church  in  Sandwich.  One  of 
the  orthodox  members  however  acknowledged,  that  this  circumstance 
would  not  have  been  mentioned,  had  his  religious  opinions  been  Calvin- 
istic.  Here  then  is  another  instance  in  which  the  peaceable  orthodox 
ministers  of  this  state  undertook  to  disregard  the  rights  of  congrega- 
tional churches,  and  pass  sentence  of  condemnation  on  ministerial 
brethren  for  their  honest  opinions.  More  cases  of  the  same  character 
might  be  mentioned,  but  these  are  sufficient  for  ray  present  purpose. 

Now  is  not  this  converting  orthodox  councils  into  ecclesiastical  courts* 
and  punishing  brethren  for  their  supposed  errors  and  mistakes  ?  Is  not 
this  conduct  subversive  of  congregational  rights  ?  One  of  the  most 
sacred  rights  of  a  congregational  church  is  this;  that  each  church  has 
full  power  to  transact  all  its  own  concerns.  It  may  ordain  a  minister 
over  itself  without  a«2/  aid  from  sister  churches.  Several  ministers 
were  so  ordained  in  the  early  history  of  our  Commonwealth.  When  a 
church  invites  the  assistance  of  other  churches,  it  does  not  ask  them  to 
dictate, —  to  decide  on  the  ministerial  character  of  other  invited  guests; 
no,  it  merely  requests  them  to  assist  in  the  ordination.  If  they  cannot  do 
this,  their  presence  is  never  desired.  And  a  majority  have  no  more 
right  to  exclude  a  minority,  than  the  minority  have  to  exclude  the  ma- 
jority. All  this  is  usurpation.  And  what  would  you  say,  should  a 
unitarian  majority  of  an  ordaining  council  exclude  the  orthodox  minor- 
ity ?  Would  you  not  pronounce  such  conduct  intolerant,  abusive,  un- 
christian !  And  is  it  any  the  less  intolerant,  any  the  less  abusive,  any 
the  less  unchristian,  when  perpetrated  by  an  orthodox  majority  .^ 

Secondly,  take  those  cases  in  which  ecclesiastical  councils  have  en- 
deavoured to  injure  the  ministerial  character  of  those  preachers  who  have 
renounced  orthodoxy.  The  proceedings  against  the  Rev.  Mr.  Field 
furnish  us  with  a  fair  specimen  of  this  class  of  orthodox  usurpations. 
The  circumstances  are  briefly  these.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Field  was  led,  by 
a  most  patient  and  prayerful  study  of  the  Scriptures,  to  depart  from  the 
human  explanations  of  certain  orthodox  doctrines,  lie  freely  stated 
his  Pf'vv  vipu.s  to  his  iniiuKtcrial  brethren,  and  f>iirnestly  desired  them 


LETTER  I.  41 

to  expose  his  errors.  But  they  were  unable  or  unwilling  to  discuss 
such  controverted  questions,  and  accordingly  excluded  him  from  his 
equal  rights  and  privileges  in  their  association.  He  soon  exposed  their 
intolerant  and  unchristian  conduct  in  a  small  publication.  They  chose 
a  committee  of  the  Franklin  Association  to  request  him  to  unite  with  them 
in  calling  a  mutual  council  for  the  settlement  of  their  difficulties.  His 
principal  difficulties  were  the  cruel  persecutions  of  these  very  ministers, 
and  these  he  chose  to  leave  for  settlement  at  the  great  day  of  ac- 
counts, and  consequently  declined  their  proposal.  They  however 
proceeded  to  convene  an  ex  parte  council  at  Greenfield,  some  twelve  or 
fifteen  miles  from  Charlemont,  for  the  trial  of  Mr.  Field,  in  August, 
1822.  After  long  deliberation,  the  council  came  to  a  result.  They 
invited  the  people  of  the  surrounding  country  to  hear  it  read  in  the 
meetinghouse,  so  as  to  make  their  sentence  of  condemnation  as  widely 
known  as  convenient.  The  impression  left  on  the  mind  of  the  hearers 
was  this;  "  That  the  Rev.  Mr.  Field  had  been  betrayed  into  conduct 
unworthy  his  sacred  office,  and  which  evidently  tended  to  injure  his 
reputation  and  impede  his  usefulness."  And  why  was  all  this  parade 
and  persecution  ?  Simply  because  Mr.  Field  had  renounced  some 
orthodox  opinions,  and,  in  a  fearless  and  honest  manner,  exposed  the 
iniquity  of  his  persecutors.  Just  reverse  the  case.  Suppose  Dr.  Chan- 
ning  had  called  on  you  to  unite  with  him  in  a  mutual  council  for  the 
settlement  of  your  difficulties.  Suppose  you  had  declined,  and  an  ex 
parte  council  had  been  convened  at  Salem  to  investigate  your  conduct. 
Suppose  they  should  invite  the  inhabitants  of  that  and  the  neighbouring 
towns  to  hear  their  result ;  and  should  leave  the  impression  upon  the 
public  mind,  that  you  had  been  betrayed  into  unchristian  and  immoral 
conduct,  and  that  your  ministerial  character  was  ruined.  Would  you 
not  pronounce  such  proceedings  oppressive,  tyrannical,  and  wicked  ? 
And  are  they  any  the  less  oppressive,  or  tyrannical,  or  wicked,  when 
perpetrated  by  an  orthodox  ex  parte  council  without  a  hundredth  part  of 
the  provocation  ? 

Thirdly,  take  those  cases  in  which  orthodox  councils  have  openly 
violated  their  pledges  and'the  principles  of  congregational  order.  The 
proceedings  of  an  orthodox  ex  parte  council  at  Charlemont  furnish  a  fair 
illustration  of  such  usurpations.  The  circumstances  are  briefly  these. 
After  the  Rev.  Mr.  Field  had  been  excluded  from  the  Franklin  Associa- 
tion for  heresy,  an  attempt  was  made  with  some  success  to  create  a 
dissatisfaction  with  his  ministerial  services  among  his  people.  A  part 
of  the  society  seceded,  and  held  meetings  by  themselves  for  nearly  a 
year.  They  then  called  themselves  the  first  church,  and  proposed  to 
Mr.  Field  to  unite  with  them  in  calling  a  mutual  council  for  the  settle- 
ment of  their  difficulties.  But,  in  proposing  a  council,  they  would  not 
allow  him  the  liberty  of  electing  his  part  of  the  ministers,  only  from 
one  or  two  orthodox  associations.  This  of  course  prevented  his  accept- 
6 


42  LETTER  I. 

ance  of  their  proposals ;  for  the  council  would  not  be  rnvtual,  if  they 
chose  all  the  members.  An  ex  parte  council  was  then  convened  by 
letters  from  these  seceders.  The  council  acknowledged  this  body  as 
the  true  and  first  church  ;  declared  themselves  regularly  called  ;  asserted 
that  the  church  had  sufficient  reason  for  such  a  course,  since  their 
proposals  for  a  mutual  council  were  rejected  ;  dissolved  the  ministerial 
relation  between  Mr.  Field  and  his  people ;  and  vented  all  their  spleen, 
by  abusing  him  in  their  result,  in  the  most  shameful  manner.  And  all 
this  too,  afler  one  of  the  council  had  pledged  himself  and  the  council,  that 
their  result  should  contain  nothing  to  wound  the  feelings  either  of  Mr. 
Field  or  his  friends.  My  limits  do  not  permit  me  to  enter  into  all  the 
particulars  of  this  case.  The  documents  before  me  are  full  and  satisfac- 
tory. And  the  impression  on  my  own  mind  is  this ;  that  the  annals  of 
the  inquisition  can  scarcely  furnish  a  parallel  case  of  persecution,  to 
that  which  has  been  carried  on  by  orthodox  ministers  against  Mr.  Field. 
I  am  credibly  informed  that  one  of  the  orthodox  ministers  in  that  very 
region,  when  speaking  of  the  persecuting  conduct  of  his  orthodox  min- 
isterial brethren,  pronounced  it  "  diabolical."  Now  bring  this 
measure  home  to  our  own  county.  Several  of  the  orthodox  ministers  in 
this  vicinity  have  latterly  refused  to  exchange  with  unitarians.  This  is 
contrary  to  the  wishes  of  a  large  majority  of  their  supporters.  Suppose 
this  majority  should  propose  to  their  minister  to  call  a  mutual  council  to 
settle  their  difficulties  ;  but  should  limit  his  choice  of  ministers  to  one  or 
two  associations  of  unitarian  preachers.  Suppose  he  should  decline  the 
insulting  proposal ;  and  they  should  convene  an  ex  parte  council  for  the 
proposed  business.  Suppose  the  council  should  proceed  to  dissolve  the 
pastoral  relation  between  the  minister  and  his  flock,  and  hold  him  up  to 
the  public  as  unworthy  of  confidence.  Would  you  not  call  this 
uncongregational,  and  a  direct  violation  of  the  rights  of  minister  and 
people  ?  And  is  not  the  case  at  Charlemont  infinitely  worse  than  this 
supposition  ?  Will  you  not  admit  that  the  proceedings  of  orthodox 
ecclesiastical  councils  have  sometimes  been  subversive  of  the  rights  of 
free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  ? 
4.  Ministerial  Assocxaiions.  Fourthly.  Look  at  the  proceedings  of 
orthodox  ministerial  associations.  These  associations  were  originally 
formed  for  friendly  intercourse  and  mutual  improvement.  One  would 
naturally  suppose  that  more  progress  must  be  made  in  Christian  knowl- 
edge, where  the  members  had  embraced  different  religious  sentiments. 
But  it  appears  that  such  has  not  been  the  opinion  of  orthodox  ministers. 
And  facts  will  show  that  several  of  their  associations  have  converted 
themselves  into  ecclesiastical  courts,  so  as  to  call  unitarians  to  account 
for  their  honest  opinions,  to  pass  sentence  of  condemnation  on  their 
publications,  and  to  proclaim  to  the  world  that  their  characters  are 
unministerial  and  unchristian.  I  will  mention  three  different  classes  of 
such  proceedings.    Take,^r«<,  those  cases  in  which  orthodox 


LETTER  I.  4P 

ciations  have  called  unitarian  ministers  to  account  for  their  opinions, 
and  excluded  them  from  their  meetings  for  their  supposed  errors.  In 
1820,  a  committee  of  two  was  chosen  by  the  Hampshire  Central  Asso- 
ciation to  catechize  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bailey  as  to  his  religious  opinions.  He 
received  them  very  politely,  and  answered  their  questions  very  cheer- 
fully. A  few  months  after,  he  received  a  letter  from  the  scribe  of  the 
association,  informing  him,  that  in  consequence  of  his  errors,  his  con- 
nexion with  their  body  was  dissolved.  They  however  granted  him  the 
privilege  of  appearing  before  them  to  answer  to  the  charge  of  heresy. 
He  did  not  incline  to  accept  their  very  generous  offer.  And  by  what 
right  did  they  pass  this  vote  of  exclusion  ?  The  right  of  the  strongest 
They  were  the  majority ;  and  therefore  had  the  power  to  persecute. 
This  is  a  fair  sample  of  a  multitude  of  similar  cases.  Among  those  who 
have  been  excluded  from  orthodox  associations  for  embracing  unitarian 
sentiments,  are  such  men  as  the  Rev.  Dr.  Noah  Worcester,  the  Rev* 
Thomas  Worcester,  the  Rev.  Preserved  Smith,  the  Rev.  Joseph  Field,  the 
Rev.  Dan  Huntington,  the  Rev.  Winthrop  Bailey,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sher- 
man. Suppose  a  unitarian  majority  should  exclude  an  orthodox  minority 
from  their  associations.  What  would  you  say  of  their  conduct  ?  Would 
you  not  pronounce  it  usurpation,  intolerance,  bigotry  ?  And  is  it  less 
usurpation,  and  intolerance,  and  bigotry,  when  perpetrated  by  orthodox 
majorities  ? 

Secondly,  take  those  cases  in  which  orthodox  associations  have  de- 
nounced the  publications  of  unitarians.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Field  published  his 
sentiments  on  the  Trinity  and  Atonement.  The  Franklin  Association 
record  their  testimony,  that  "  those  sentiments  are  not  agreeable  with 
divine  revelation,  nor  according  to  the  faith  of  the  true  church  of  Christ 
from  age  to  age,  nor  in  unison  with  the  testimony  of  genuine  Christian 
experience."  Take  another  example  from  the  records  of  the  Hopkinton 
Association.  "  The  Hopkinton  Association,  having  seen  and  read  a 
publication,  entitled  Bible  JVews,  another  entitled  An  Impartial  Review 
of  Testimonies,  by  Rev.  Noah  Worcester,  and  several  other  publications 
by  Rev.  Thomas  Worcester,  all  going  to  disprove  the  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  as  held  by  the  great  Reformers,  by  our  pious  forefathers, 
by  the  orthodox  churches  of  the  Christian  world  at  the  present  day,  and 
in  the  opinion  of  this  association  fully  supported  by  the  Scriptures  of 
truth ;  and  feeling  it  our  duty,  not  only  in  an  individual,  but  in  an  asso- 
ciate capacity,  to  bear  testimony  against  all  error,  and  especially  against 
so  material  an  error  as  a  denial  of  the  self-existence  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  therefore  voted,  that  the  doctrine  con- 
tained in  the  above  named  publications  is  in  our  opinion  a  departure 
from  the  pure  faith  of  the  church  of  Christ ;  tends  to  strengthen  the 
enemies,  and  thereby  greatly  to  injure  the  cause,  of  Zion."  Perhaps 
these  two  are  sufficient  specimens  of  the  votes  of  orthodox  associations. 
And  now  what  do  you  consider  the  character  of  such,  proceedings  ? 


44  LETTER  I. 

Just  bring  the  measure  home  to  your  own  bosom.  Suppose  the  Boston 
Association  should  record  such  a  vote  and  preamble  as  the  following : 
'  The  Boston  Association,  having  seen  and  read  a  publication,  entitled 
A  Letter  on  Rdigious  Liberty^  by  the  Rev.  Moses  Stuart,  going  to  prove 
that  the  orthodox  sect  is  the  only  liberal  denomination ;  and  feeling  it 
our  duty  to  bear  testimony  against  all  error,  not  only  in  an  individual 
but  in  an  associate  capacity,  and  especially  against  so  material  an  error 
as  that  above  stated,  which  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  belief  of  the  true 
church,  but  subversive  of  all  morality  ;  therefore  voted,  that  the  above 
named  publication  is  in  our  opinion  a  departure  from  the  truth,  tends  to 
strengthen  the  enemies,  and  thereby  greatly  to  injure  the  cause,  of 
Zion.'  I  need  not  ask,  if  you  would  not  regard  such  a  measure  as 
indicating  the  inability  of  the  Association  to  answer  your  publication. 
But  I  may  ask  if  you  would  not  call  such  conduct  a  very  silly  business? 
And  is  the  same  action  any  the  less  silly  when  performed  by  an  orthodox 
association  ? 

Thirdly,  take  those  cases  in  which  orthodox  associations  have  published 
to  the  world,  that  the  conduct  of  certain  ministers  of  good  Christian 
character,  rendered  them  unworthy  of  public  confidence.  This  was 
done  by  the  Hampshire  Central  Association  the  last  year  in  relation  to 
a  worthy  minister  of  orthodox  sentiments.  The  circumstances  are 
briefly  these.  A  part  of  the  orthodox  society  in  Westhampton  seceded, 
and  held  separate  meetings.  They  employed  an  orthodox  minister  by 
the  name  of  John  Truair.  The  association  in  that  region  were  inter- 
ested to  prevent  the  formation  of  a  second  parish  in  that  town.  They 
accordingly  chose  a  committee  to  persuade  the  two  parties  to  unite,  and 
Mr.  Truair  to  leave  the  place.  The  seceders  agreed  to  return  to  the 
old  congregation,  and  their  preacher  to  retire  from  their  employment, 
on  certain  conditions.  The  Committee  of  the  Association  then  gave  to 
Mr.  Truair  the  following  recommendation:  "We,  the  Committee  of 
the  Hampshire  Association,  hereby  certify,  that  we  consider  Rev.  John 
Truair's  Christian  and  ministerial  standing  good,  and  as  such  we 
reconunend  him  to  the  employment  of  the  churches  and  societies 
wherever  God  in  his  providence  shall  call  him."  The  old  society  did 
not  comply  with  their  part  of  the  conditions,  and  the  seceders  therefore 
refused  to  return,  and  still  employed  their  present  preacher.  The 
Association,  with  a  long  and  truly  papal  preamble,  publish  in  the 
Hampshire  Gazette  the  following  resolutions:  ^^ Resolved,  that  the 
conduct  of  Rev.  John  Truair,  since  he  has  resided  within  the  limits  of 
this  association,  has  been  such  as  to  forfeit  our  confidence  in  him  as  a 
minister  of  Christ  Resolved,  that  it  is  our  duty  to  give  public  notice  of 
our  views  of  his  conduct,  and  thus  warn  the  churches  against  his 
influence ;  and  that,  for  this  purpose,  the  scribe  of  the  Association  is 
hereby  directed,  after  sending  a  copy  of  this  act  of  withdrawment  to  the 
Rev.  John  Truair,  immediately  to  cause  it   to  be  published  in  the 


LETTER  I.  45 

Hampshire  Gazette."  This  bull  of  excommunication  was  immediately 
published,  with  the  names  of  twenty  orthodox  ministers  attached.  And 
what  had  this  persecuted  man  done  to  merit  this  severe  and  destructive 
persecution  ?  Nothing  half  so  bad  as  the  orthodox  preachers  are  doing 
almost  every  day  in  this  vicinity.  I  wish  his  Appeal  may  be  read  by 
every  friend  of  religious  freedom. 

Take  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Worcester  of  Salisbury,  N.  H.  He 
had  been  persecuted  in  almost  every  possible  manner  by  the  orthodox, 
because  he  renounced  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  But  the  Hopkinton 
Association  filled  up  the  measure  of  his  sufferings,  by  publishing  to  the 
world,  that  he  was  not  worthy  to  he  owned  or  employed  as  a  Christian  minister 
on  account  of  his  great  errors.  I  have  not  room  for  the  bull  of  excom- 
munication and  condemnation  which  they  published  in  two  or  three  news- 
papers. You  see  in  this  minister  a  very  fair  specimen  of  the  persecutions 
a  man  must  suffer,  if  he  dares  to  think  for  himself  and  differ  from  the  stan- 
dard of  orthodoxy.  I  wish  you  to  notice  this  case.  I  will  give  you  a 
slight  view  of  his  sufferings  in  his  own  words.  Here  they  are.  "  Who 
can  help  seeing  much,  very  much,  to  deter  even  good  men  from  faithful 
inquiry,  in  such  reproaches,  censures,  and  privations,  as  have,  in  our  day, 
and  in  this  land  of  liberty,  been  the  consequences  of  denying  such  a 
cardinal  point  of  popular  orthodoxy  ?  Even  in  New  England,  in  this 
greatly  distinguished  portion  of  the  Christian  community,  a  minister  of 
the  Gospel  has  more  than  a  little  to  fear  as  a  consequence  of  giving  up 
the  triune  faith.  Take  my  own  case  as  a  witness.  Although  for  more 
than  ten  years  after  an  open  avowal  of  my  disbelief  of  the  triune  doc- 
trine, I  was  permitted  to  hold  my  place  as  a  pastor,  the  most  of  the  time 
in  a  good  degree  of  peace  and  comfort  at  home  ;  yet  to  have  my  name 
so  much,  and  so  extensively  as  it  was,  cast  out  as  evil,  and  to  be 
disowned,  and  treated  as  a  great  errorist,  so  much  as  I  was,  by  ministers, 
who  for  twenty  preceding  years  had  treated  me  as  a  brother  in  deed 
and  in  truth,  was  not  a  very  small  trial.  And  after  this,  to  be  separated 
from  a  beloved  people,  to  whose  welfare  I  had  been  devoted  for  thirty 
years  ;  to  have  the  hearts  of  some  torn  from  me,  and  to  be  torn  from  the 
hearts  of  so  many  as  remain  tenderly  attached,  and  are  to  me  much 
endeared  brethren  and  friends  ;  to  have  my  temporal  support  unexpect- 
edly taken  away,  leaving  me  under  embarrassments  and  privations,  to 
be  felt,  in  all  probability,  as  long  as  my  life  shall  continue ;  and  to  be, 
under  a  considerable  advance  in  the  decline  of  life,  subjected  to  great 
uncertainty  as  to  any  productive  employment,  in  the  only  way  to  which 
I  have  been  accustomed  to  it  from  my  youth ;  all  this  cannot  be  deemed 
a  very  small  trial.  Nor  was  it  expected  that  it  would  be  so  considered. 
But  those,  who  occasioned  it,  probably  expected  it  would  be  so  viewed,  as 
to  have,  like  other  things  of  a  similar  nature,  a  deterring  influence,  to 
prevent  other  instances  of  departure  from  the  point  of  reputed  orthodoxy 
in  question."    Since  this  was  written,  a  little  orthodox  church  in  the 


46  LETTER  I. 

place,  a  minority  of  a  minority,  have  passed  a  vote  of  excommunication 
against  the  man  who  was  once  their  own  pastor.  But  with  all  these 
means  of  persecution,  many  of  his  old  parishioners  remain  firm  friends. 
In  the  few  months  tliat  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cross  has  been  settled  in  the 
town,  the  venerable  and  persecuted  and  dismissed  pastor  has  been  invited 
to  attend  thirteen  out  of  sixteen  funerals  which  have  occurred.  Here 
then  is  a  specimen  of  the  persecutions  which  many  most  worthy  min- 
isters have  had  to  suffer  from  orthodox  bigotry,  simply  because  they 
preferred  the  language  of  Christ  to  the  language  of  human  creeds.  It 
is  enough  to  make  the  heart  bleed  to  read  over  all  the  documents  in  my 
possession,  which  reveal  the  unchristian  treatment  of  unitarian  ministers 
and  Christians  by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  denomination.  But  I 
have  given  facts  enough  to  prove  that  orthodox  ministerial  associations 
have  converted  themselves  into  ecclesiastical  courts,  so  as  to  try  and  pun- 
ish the  supposed  errors  of  unitarians  as  heresies,  that  is,  as  crimes. 
And  you  will  surely  admit  that  all  such  proceedings  are  subversive  of 
free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism. 
5.  Churches.  Fifthly.  Look  at  the  proceedings  of  orthodox  churches. 
They  also  have  converted  themselves  into  ecclesiastical  courts  to  try 
and  punish  Christians  for  their  honest  sentiments.  They  have  assumed 
unscriptural  power,  and  made  the  exercise  of  their  authority  subversive 
of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  congregational- 
ism.  I  will  mention  ybiir  different  classes  of  facts  in  proof  of  these  as- 
sertions, hook,  Jirsty  at  the  terms  of  adinission  into  orthodox  churches. 
Two  circumstances  strike  me  as  peculiarly  oppressive  and  unchristian. 
One  is  this.  The  candidate  for  admission  is  obliged  to  profess  his  hearty 
belief  in  the  articles  of  a  long  human  creed,  before  he  can  be  receiv- 
ed to  communion.  Now  from  what  source  do  you  obtain  authority  to 
require  this  confession  ?  From  Christ  Jesus  ?  No  ;  he  has  given  no 
such  right  to  any  man,  nor  to  any  body  of  men.  He  has  explicitly 
taught  us,  that  those  are  his  true  disciples  who  keep  his  words,  and  not 
those  who  compel  their  equals  to  subscribe  to  words  and  phrases 
of  man's  invention.  And  if  you  do  not  obtain  your  authority  from  Jesus 
Christ,  is  it  not  usurped  ?  Is  he  not  the  sole  Head  of  the  church  ?  Is  he 
not  the  only  Lawgiver  of  Christians  ?  Is  he  not  the  only  Master  of 
true  followers  ?  Are  not  all  his  disciples  on  an  equal  footing?  Have  not 
the  minority  of  the  communicants  precisely  the  same  right  to  prescribe 
a  creed  for  the  majority,  that  the  majority  have  to  do  this  for  the  mi- 
nority ?  Has  not  the  only  lawful  creed-maker  for  Christians  given  a  per- 
fect standard  of  Christian  faith  and  practice  in  his  own  language  ?  Is  it 
not  high  presumption  in  man  to  attempt  to  improve  upon  the  teachings 
of  the  only  infallil)le  Guide  ?  And  not  only  so.  Is  not  this  practice  of 
compelling  members  to  subscribe  a  human  creed  most  wicked  ?  Just 
consider  one  circumstance  of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  your  church- 
es.    A  young  man,  for  instance,  who  has  lived  a  very  tlioughtless  and 


LETTER  I.  47 

irreligious  life,  is  suddenly  converted.  After  a  few  weeks  he  is  admit- 
ted to  the  communion  with  great  formality.  Before  God  and  man,  he 
professes  his  hearty  belief  in  the  articles  of  a  long  human  creed,  which 
perhaps  he  never  saw  or  heard  till  that  moment.  Is  he  not  thus  com- 
pelled to  utter  a  solemn  falsehood  ?  How  can  he  believe  a  proposition 
without  evidence  ?  Has  he  obtained  conclusive  proof,  during  a  few 
weeks'  hasty  and  agitated  perusal  of  the  Scriptures,  that  all  the  articles 
of  the  creed  are  literally  true  ?  Is  this  possible?  For  my  own  part,  I 
have  often  shuddered,  when  I  have  known  young  and  ignorant  converts 
compelled  to,  express  their  hearty  belief  in  propositions  which  they 
did  not  understand,  and  of  course  could  not  believe.  I  think  you  will 
admit  that  this  practice  of  orthodox  churches  is  both  unscriptural  and 
injurious. 

The  other  circumstance  to  which  I  alluded  is  this.  The  candidate 
for  admission  is  obliged,  not  only  to  profess  his  hearty  belief  in  the  ar- 
ticles of  the  creed,  but  he  is  also  compelled  to  take  a  solemn  vow  that  he 
will  never  disbelieve  these  articles.  Let  me  quote  a  few  sentences,  in 
proof  of  this  assertion,  from  the  covenant  of  one  of  your  new  churches. 
"  Hereafter  you  can  never  withdraio  from  the  watch  and  communion  of 
saints  without  a  breach  of  covenant  Let  it  be  impressed  on  your  minds, 
that  you  have  come  under  solemn  obligations,  from  which  you  can  never 
escape.  Wherever  you  go,  these  voivs  will  be  upon  you.  They  will  fol- 
low you  to  the  bar  of  God ;  and  in  whatever  world  you  may  be  fixed, 
will  abide  upon  you  to  eternity.  You  have  unalterably  committed  your- 
selves, and  henceforth  you  mu^t  be  the  servants  of  God."  Now  what 
do  you  call  this  ?  Is  not  the  candidate  made  to  believe,  that  he  can 
never  depart  from  the  sentiments  of  the  human  creed  without  a  breach 
of  his  covenant  engagements  ?  —  without  a  violation  of  his  most  solemn 
obligations  ?  —  without  a  wilful  transgression  of  his  everlasting  vows  ? 
Certainly.  For  I  have  known  instances  in  which  those,  who  had  re- 
nounced their  orthodox  belief,  were  so  assured.  One  lady,  who  request- 
ed a  dismission  and  recommendation  to  a  unitarian  church,  was  inform- 
ed that  no  dismission  would  be  granted,  that  she  must  be  excommuni- 
cated for  a  breach  of  her  covenant  engagements.  Another  lady,  who  had 
embraced  unitarian  sentiments,  was  told  by  her  pastor,  that  she  had 
perjured  herself  And  now  where  do  you  obtain  authority  for  such  a 
measure?  Is  it  derived  from  Christ?  No.  I  contend  that  you  have  no 
right  whatever  to  make  any  person  take  such  solemn  oaths,  as  a  neces- 
sary step  to  the  communion  table.  For  in  so  doing,  you  in  effect  re- 
quire them  to  promise  to  perform  one  of  two  things,  —  either  to 
neglect  the  Bible  wholly,  or  to  perform  an  impossibility.  If  you  al- 
low them  to  study  the  Scriptures,  no  doubt  they  will  depart  at  least 
from  some  expressions  of  the  creed  ;  and  they  cannot  believe  the  hu- 
man opinion  in  opposition  to  Scriptural  evidence.  I  do  hope  the  follow- 
ers of  Jesus  will  look  to  this  clerical  usurpation  of  his  rightful  authority  ; 


48  LETTER  I. 

and  banish  all  such  human  traditions  from  the  school  of  their  divine  Mas- 
ter. For  I  think  a  candid  considerntion  of  these  two  practices  must 
convince  them  of  their  unscriptural  character  and  illiberal  and  oppres- 
sive tendency. 

In  the  second  p\ace^  look  to  the  causes  of  excommunications  from  ortho- 
dox churches.  Three  circumstances  strike  me  as  peculiarly  oppressive 
and  unchristian.  One  is  this.  The  orthodox  have  repeatedly  excom- 
municated members  from  their  churches  who  were  not  accused  of  any 
unchristian  or  immoral  conduct;  who  exhibited  a  religious  temper  and 
character,  and  who  made  the  Scriptures  their  only  standard  of  faith  and 
practice.  And  for  what  cause  ?  Simply  for  obeying  the  plain  com- 
mands of  Jesus.  Simply  for  searching  the  Scriptures  for  themselves, 
and  expressing  their  sentiments  in  the  very  words  of  the  sacred  wri- 
ters. Simply  because  they  followed  the  Lord  Jesus,  instead  of  human 
masters.  Cases  of  this  kind  are  of  so  frequent  occurrence,  that  it  is 
not  necessary  to  mention  particular  examples.  In  one  instance,  the 
minister  assured  a  lady  who  had  embraced  unitarianism,  that  her 
crime  was  much  more  alarming  than  any  open  immorality.  In  anoth- 
er place,  a  man,  who  still  adhered  to  orthodoxy,  was  publicly  excommu- 
nicated, because  he  sent  his  children  to  a  unitarian  sunday  school  and 
would  not  pronounce  the  unitarian  doctrine  to  be  as  bad  as  Deism  and 
Atheism.  But  as  you  may  want  evidence  of  this  assertion,  I  will  give  you 
an  extract  from  a  letter  lately  received  by  a  gentleman  in  this  vicinity 
from  a  most  respectable  unitarian  minister  in  another  State.  The  letter 
was  written  without  any  knowledge  of  my  undertaking,  and  is  now 
used  by  me  without  his  knowledge  or  permission. 

"  The  Presbyterians  are  waging  most  bitter  war  against  us ;  war 
to  the  very  knife.  There  is  no  form  of  accusation  or  misrepresentation 
left  untried  ;  the  same  slandering  of  private  character  and  the  same 
misrepresentations  of  which  you  see  something  in  Massachusetts. 
They  are  endeavouring  to  crush  all  freedom  of  thought  and  opinion. 
No  longer  than  a  week  ago,  a  man,  against  whose  moral  and  religious 
character  not  a  single  charge  was  brought,  a  man  who  is  a  presbyterian  in 
his  faith,  was  publicly  excommunicated  from  the  presbyterian  church  ; 
and  these  were  the  reasons,  viz.  That  he  had  sent  his  children  to  an 
unitarian  sunday  school,  and  on  being  questioned  by  the  church  ses- 
sions, had  said,  that  he  did  not  think  the  unitarian  belief  was  as  bad 
as  it  had  been  represented  ;  that  is,  as  bad  as  Deism  and  Atheism. 
These  were  the  reasons,  as  read  from  the  pulpit,  in  full  meeting  for 
communion,  for  expelling  a  man  from  the  presbyterian  church.  The 
people  are  taught  that  it  is  wicked  to  hear  a  unitarian  preach,  or  read 
a  unitarian  book.  The  Rev.  Mr. ,  in  a  long  and  labored  para- 
graph, puts  on  the  same  ground,  permission  granted  by  the  presbytery 
for  the  people  of  their  charge  to  hear  unitarian  preaching,  and  permis- 
sion granted  by  a  father  for  his  children  to  visit  a  brothel  or  gaming- 


LETTER  I.  49 

table.  He  says,  that  those  who  are  trained  up  in  unitarian  sentiments, 
are  trained  up  in  the  way  to  hell,  to  be  damned.  Every  means  that 
can  prevent  people  from  hearing,  thinking,  or  knowing  any  thing  of 
unitarianism  ;  every  measure  that  can  be  devised  and  enforced,  is  put 
in  operation.  The  terrors  of  church  censure  and  hell-fire,  things 
almost  equally  terrible,  are  made  the  instruments  of  barring  men  from 
thought  and  knowledge.  Every  thing  like  freedom  of  thought  is 
crushed.  This  is  what  is  to  be  feared  ;  not  Calvinistic  doctrines,  but 
this  tyranny  over  men's  opinions  and  consciences ;  a  tyranny  to  the 
full  as  bad  as  any  that  could  possibly  proceed  froai  the  union  of  church 
and  state  ;  a  tyranny  that  stretches  across  our  land,  blighting  and 
withering,  and  making  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  unbelievers 
and  hypocrites.     September^  1830." 

This,  Sir,  may  seem  to  you  strong  language.  But  my  own  observa- 
tion, during  an  absence  of  three  months,  last  season,  in  which  I  touched 
upon  some  ten  or  eleven  of  the  States,  enables  me  to  testify  to  its 
literal  truth.  Without,  however,  dwelling  on  this  case,  I  will  return 
to  the  common  excommunications  in  this  region  for  an  honest  differ- 
ence of  opinion.  And  I  would  ask,  from  what  source  you  obtain 
authority  for  such  proceedings  ?  From  reason  ?  There  is  nothing  rea- 
sonable in  the  practice.  How  much  more  reasonable  would  it  be  for 
the  persecuted  disciple  to  excommunicate  the  persecuters  for  not 
adhering  to  the  words  of  revelation  ?  Is  your  authority  derived  from 
Scripture  ?  I  challenge  you  to  produce  any  such  authority  from  the 
Bible.  I  challenge  you,  or  any  other  man,  to  produce  one  passage  of 
holy  writ,  which  gives  an  orthodox  church  the  right  to  excommunicate 
a  member  for  heresy,  so  long  as  the  member  makes  the  Bible  his 
standard  of  faith,  and  exhibits  a  Christian  character.  You,  indeed, 
have  the  majority,  and  can  vote  him  to  be  a  heretic.  But  does  your 
vote  make  him  any  the  less  a  Christian  ?  And  on  the  same  principle, 
why  do  you  not  vote  to  see  if  he  may  deal  honestly,  or  love  mercy,  or 
walk  humbly  with  his  God  ;  as  well  as  to  determine  whether  lie  may 
obey  the  dying  request  of  his  Saviour,  and  follow  the  plain  language 
of  inspiration  in  forming  his  religious  belief?  I  do  think  that  a  little 
consideration  must  convince  candid  minds,  that  excommunication  for 
honest  opinions  merely,  is  both  unchristian  and  tyrannical.  The  Pope 
excommunicated  Martin  Luther,  and  Martin  Luther  excommunicated 
the  Pope.  And  was  not  the  bull  pronounced  by  the  heretic  as  valid  as 
the  one  by  the  head  of  orthodoxy  ? 

The  next  circumstance  to  which  I  alluded  is  this.  Orthodox 
churches  have  refused  to  dismiss  members  and  recommend  them  to  uni- 
tarian churches.  And  when  they  have  united  with  such  churches,  in 
compliance  with  congregational  rules,  they  have  been  excommunicated 
for  their  conduct.  Repeated  instances  of  this  nature  have  lately 
7 


50  LETTER  I. 

occurred.  Orthodox  ministers  have  assured  such  members,  both  in 
conversation  and  writing,  that  theirs  were  ca?es  of  peculiar  guilt  and 
imniincnt  peril,  and  tliat  Ihcy  would  choerfully  recommend  them  to  a 
Christian  church.  I  will  take  one  instance  for  an  illustration  of  my 
remarks.  Three  individuals  of  the  first  church  in  Newton  removed 
some  ten  or  fifteen  years  since  into  the  town  of  Brighton.  About  a 
year  ago,  they  requested  a  dismission  from  that  church,  and  a  recom- 
mendation to  the  congregational  church  in  the  place  of  their  residence. 
In  answer  to  their  request,  the  following  absolute  refusal  was  received. 
"  l\ev.  and  Dear  Sir, 
**  Your  letter  requesting  the  dismission  and  recommendation  of  three 
of  our  church  members  now  residing  in  Brighton,  has  been  laid  before 
this  church.  After  mature  deliberation  it  was  voted  unanimously, 
I  that  w^e  do  not  comply  with  the  request.'  The  reason  for  passing 
such  a  vote  was  not  because  the  three  individuals  were  not  in  good 
CHRISTIAN  standing  among  us  ;  but  the  sole  reason  was,  because  we 
considered  a  compliance  with  your  request '  manifestly  unsafe.^  In  thus 
voting,  we  have  followed  the  directions  given  in  the  Cambridge  Plat- 
form. That  expressly  declares,  '  if  a  member's  departure  be  mani- 
festly unsafe  and  sinful,  the  church  may  not  assent  thereunto." 

Now  had  this  said  church  read  the  whole  of  the  paragraph  from 
which  this  quotation  is  taken  ;  and  more  especially,  had  they  read  a 
note  by  the  orthodox  editor  of  the  new  edition  of  the  Platform  at  the 
bottom   of  another   page,  they  would   have   been    obliged  to  invent 
some  other   excuse    for   their    refusal.     The    individuals    concerned 
perused  these  remarks,  and  in  strict  compliance  with  the  rules  of  the 
Platform,  provided  for  their  case,  joined  the  first  church  in  Brighton. 
Whereupon,  a  bull  of  excommunication  was  thundered  forth  from  the 
pulpit  of  the  first  church  in  Newton.     The  same  body  have  also  more 
lately  excommunicated  two  others  for  attending  the  communion  of  the 
unitarian  church  in  Watertown.     I  would  not  insinuate  that  either  of 
these  measures,  any  more  than  many  other  late  proceedings  of  the 
orthodox,  have  received  the  approbation  of  the  worthy  senior  pastor  of 
the  first  church  in  Newton.     This,  Sir,  is  but  a  specimen  of  a  great 
number  of  cases  of  a  similar  character.     And  will  you  not  pronounce 
this  act  uncongregational  ?    Is  not  the  first  church  in  Brighton  in  as 
good  and  regular  standing  as  it  ever  was  ?    And  where  is  the  wisdom 
or  the  Christianity  of  such  a  proceeding  ?   Let  me   suppose  a   parallel 
case.     Suppose  one  of  my  church  should  remove  into  an  orthodox  par- 
ish, and  request  a  dismission,  and  recommendation  to  the  church  in  the 
place  of  his  residence.   Suppose  my  church  should  absolutely  refuse  to 
grant  the  request,  and  give  as  the  sole  reason  of  their  conduct,  that  they 
considered  a  compliance  manifestly  unsafe  and  sinful.     We  could  say 
this  with  as  much  right  and  more  reason  than  it  can  be  said  by  an 
orthodox  church.     For  if  the  orthodox  are  sincere  in  their  belief  in  the 


LETTER  I.  51 

doctrine  of  election,  they  could  not  fear  for  the  eternal  safety  of  their 
members ;  because  no  one  can  be  condemned  but  the  non-elect,  and 
nothing  can  ever  bring  them  to  salvation.  And,  so  far  as  regards  my 
own  observation,  I  could  truly  call  it  unsafe  and  sinful  to  place  one  of 
my  church  members  under  orthodox  influence.  For  I  have  thought, 
in  one  or  two  instances  of  this  kind  which  have  occurred  in  other  towns, 
that  the  individuals  were  made  worse  by  admission  into  orthodox 
churches  ;  worse,  because  they  began  soon  to  exhibit  a  self-righteous? 
censorious,  uncharitable,  condemning  spirit ;  and  did  not  observe  al- 
together a  strict  regard  to  truth  and  honesty  and  fair-dealing.  But 
should  I  be  guilty  of  refusing  to  dismiss  and  recommend  an  individual, 
and  proceed  to  excommunication,  would  you  not  pronounce  the  meas- 
ure unchristian,  illiberal,  and  oppressive  ?  And  is  the  same  act  any 
the  less  unchristian,  illiberal,  or  oppressive,  because  perpetrated  by  an 
orthodox  church  ? 

,^.  The  last  circumstance  to  which  I  alluded  is  this.  Orthodox  seceders 
from  unitarian  churches  have  been  guilty  of  the  egregious  folly  of 
excommunicating  those  who  remained,  because  they  would  not  follow 
them  to  a  new  place  of  worship  and  communion.  Many  cases  of  this 
kind  have  recently  occurred.  The  circumstances  are  so  similar  in  the 
different  places,  that  one  example  will  be  sufficient.  The  orthodox 
minister  of  a  parish  is  either  dismissed,  or  pays  the  debt  of  nature.  The 
large  majority  of  his  hearers  have  become  unitarians.  While  their 
pastor,  he  hedged  up  the  entrance  to  the  Lord's  table  with  such  high 
fences,  that  but  few  could  overleap  the  human  barriers.  Of  those 
who  obtained  admission,  a  respectable  minority  embrace  unitarian- 
ism.  The  majority  of  orthodox  communicants  then  secede ;  carry 
off  the  church  records,  plate,  and  Bible,  which  lawfully  belong  to 
the  congregation ;  beg  funds  to  erect  a  new  house  of  worship,  and 
proceed  to  excommunicate  those  who  remain  in  the  old  meetinghouse. 
Such  a  statement  appears  so  perfectly  ridiculous  and  absurd,  that  my  word 
will  be  doubted  unless  I  give  names  and  dates.  Take  the  case  then  of 
the  second  church  in  Brookfield.  The  creed  or  covenant  was  originally 
so  liberal,  that  Christians  of  different  religious  opinions  could  honestly 
give  their  assent  to  its  requisitions.  In  1825,  the  pastor  introduced 
one,  more  orthodox,  which  was  assented  to  by  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers. A  few  years  afler,  the  orthodox  minister  was  dismissed,  and  a 
unitarian  settled  in  his  place.  A  majority  of  the  male  church-mem- 
bers seceded,  and  held  separate  worship  and  communion.  About  three 
months  after  the  ordination  of  the  unitarian  minister,  the  male  mem- 
bers who  remained  were  excommunicated  horn  the  second  church  by  the 
seceders.  And  of  what  crimes  were  they  accused  ?  Among  other 
things,  the  following  were  contained  in  the  letter  of  exclusion ;  "  neg- 
lect of  duty  in  not  attending  public  worship  and  communion  seasons  ;  '* 
— "  pretending  to  style  themselves,  we  the  church,  and  as  such  to  hold 


52  LETTER  I. 

meetings  and  act  independently  of  the  church  and  pastor;*'  —  "and 
whereas  in  disregard  of  covenant  engagements,  they  refuse  to  walk 
with  the  church  in  the  observance  of  Christian  ordinances,  and  disclaim 
all  connexion  with  tlie  church  ;  tlierefore  voted.,  that  they  are  gone  out 
from  us,  and  are  no  longer  of  us  ;  that  we  hold  ourselves  absolved  from 
covenant  engagements  to  watch  over  them  ;  and  that  tliey  are  hereby 
excluded  from  our  fellowship  and  connexion."  Now  just  notice  this 
solemn  trifling.  Individuals  are  excommunicated  for  not  attending 
worship  and  communion,  for  breaking  covenant  engagements,  and  for 
going  out  from  the  church  ;  while  it  was  a  literal  fact,  that  these 
very  individuals  had  not  left  their  usual  place  of  worship,  had  not 
omitted  the  regular  seasons  of  communion,  had  broken  no  covenant 
engagements,  as  they  never  signed  the  new  orthodox  creed,  and  had 
not  gone  out  from  any  body  whatever.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who 
passed  the  vote  of  exclusion  had  actually  forsaken  the  church,  and 
worship,  and  ordinances.  But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  this  farcical 
business ;  after  the  vote  of  excommunication  had  been  sent  to  the 
regular  church  members,  a  letter  of  warning  and  reproof  was  also  for- 
warded to  each  of  the  excluded  individuals.  I  will  give  a  copy  of  the 
letter  sent  by  this  said  body  of  seceders  to  ten  females  at  a  still  later 
period. 

«  To  Mrs.  

"With  unfeigned  solicitude  for  your  most  precious  interests,  the 
church  ore  constrained  to  request  you  very  seriously  to  consider  the 
feelings  and  conduct  which  have  placed  you  in  your  present  situation. 
With  affectionate  concern,  we  beg  you  in  the  calm  hour  of  serious 
reflection,  to  ask  conscience,  whether  from  regard  to  the  will  and  com- 
mand of  your  Lord,  or  from  other  considerations,  you  have  ceased  to 
commune  and  worship  with  us  in  the  profession  of  that  faith,  which  in 
connecting  yourself  with  this  church,  you  publicly  declared  to  be  tlie 
ground  of  your  hope  in  God  ?  Is  it  a  light  matter  to  break  from  a  cov- 
enant 80  solemn  in  its  nature  as  that  into  which  you  entered  with  the 
Lord  and  this  church  ;  the  obligations  of  which  you  voluntarily  assumed, 
and  before  God  and  man  you  religiously  promised  to  fulfil  ?  What- 
ever others  may  pretend,  do  you  feel,  that  with  safety,  you  may  release 
yourself  at  pleasure  from  the  bonds  of  such  a  covenant ;  and  without 
any  formality  adopt  another  essentially  differing  in  articles  of  faith  and 
rules  of  practice  ?  Is  this,  we  would  ask,  walking  orderly  as  a 
member  of  Christ's  church  ?  And  have  you  no  anxiety  how  such  a 
transaction  is  regarded  by  your  Lord  and  Master  ?  Let  us  not  de- 
ceive ourselves.  The  whole  of  these  proceedings  will  be  reviewed 
in  the  great  day.  And  in  the  realizing  prospect  of  that  awful  scene, 
can  you  feel,  that  with  an  approving  mind  you  will  be  able  to  an- 
swer to  your  Lord  and  Judge  ?  JVe  pretend  not  to  exercise  dominion  over 
your  faith ;  nor  would  we  retain  you  in  our  connexion  contrary  to  your 


LETTER  I.  '  53 

ovm  inclinations.  If  ice  cannot  walk  by  the  same  rule,  it  is  best  to  he 
separate.  Still  we  cannot  but  consider  it  awfully  dangerous  to  trifle 
with  solemn  voivs.  And  as  one  with  whom  we  were  associated 
in  endearing  bonds ;  with  whom  we  took  delight  in  going  to  the 
house  of  God,  and  to  the  table  of  our  Lord  ;  and  whose  departure  has 
occasioned  deep  regret,  we  cannot  but  earnestly  desire,  that  if  you  are 
in  a  dangerous  error,  as  we  honestly  believe  you  to  be,  that  you  may 
be  convinced  of  it  and  repent  ere  it  be  too  late.  AwA  as  the  last 
expression  of  our  faithfulness  and  regard,  we  entreat  of  you  seriously 
to  pause  and  consider." 

Now  to  say  nothing  of  the  canting,  whining,  coaxing,  threatening 
tenor  of  this  letter,  how  perfectly  farcical  and  ridiculous  is  the  whole 
business !  Let  me  suppose  a  parallel  case,  in  order  to  bring  these 
proceedings  before  you  in  their  true  complexion.  Suppose,  then,  I  should 
now  introduce  another  covenant  into  my  church,  and  succeed  in  obtaining 
the  names  of  a  majority  of  the  members.  Suppose  my  society  should  see 
cause  to  dismiss  me  next  month  from  their  employment.  Suppose  I 
should  emigrate  to  Ohio,  with  the  majority  of  male  members  who  had 
signed  the  new  creed.  Suppose  we  should  then  and  there  call  our- 
selves the  second  church  inWaltham,  and  the  Hollis  or  Shepard  Socie- 
ty ;  and  proceed  to  excommunicate  the  remaining  minority,  because 
they  had  not  attended  our  meetings  and  communion  seasons.  Suppose 
we  should  accompany  our  vote  of  exclusion  with  a  letter  of  warning 
and  reproof  and  denunciation  to  every  remaining  individual,  male  and 
female.  Now  this  would  be  a  parallel  case  ;  for  whether  we  remove 
three  miles  or  three  hundred,  the  principle  is  precisely  the  same. 
And  should  we  adopt  such  a  measure,  would  you  not  pronounce  us 
either  foolish  or  fanatical  ?  And  does  not  such  a  proceeding  destroy 
all  religious  freedom  ?  I  well  know,  that,  in  this  vicinity,  the  excom- 
munications and  denunciations  of  the  orthodox  are  little  feared  or 
regarded.  But  such  is  not  the  fact  in  all  parts  of  our  country ;  and 
where  any  one  is  deterred  from  thinking  and  acting  freely  in  religious 
matters  by  the  fear  of  man,  there  can  be  no  religious  freedom.  I  must 
therefore  conclude  that  the  causes  of  excommunication  from  orthodox 
churches  are  destructive  of  religious  liberty,  free  inquiry,  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  Congregationalism. 

In  the  third  place,  look  at  the  rights  claimed  and  exercised  by  ortho- 
dox churches.  Three  circumstances  strike  me  as  peculiarly  unchris- 
tian and  oppressive.  One  is  this.  Orthodox  churches  claim  and  exer- 
cise the  right  of  determining  who  is  qualified  to  obey  the  last  injunc- 
tion of  our  Saviour.  And  from  whom  do  you  derive  this  power  ?  From 
the  Head  of  the  church  ?  No,  he  has  delegated  no  such  authority  to 
any  man  or  any  body  of  men.  But  I  suppose  you  will  contend  that  every 
associated  body  has  a  right  to  decide  upon  the  character  of  its  members. 
This  may  be  true  in  most  societies ;  but  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  very 


64  LETTER  1. 

different  affair.  Jesus  is  the  sole  Master  of  the  feast  He  has  given 
out  his  invitations  ;  and  every  man  must  determine  for  himself  whether 
he  is  qualified  to  accept.  And  the  idea,  so  often  advanced  by  Uie  ortho- 
dox, that  they  cannot  sit  down  to  the  communion  with  heretics,  seems 
to  me  to  proceed  on  a  very  mistaken  view  of  the  ordinance.  When  I 
approQch  the  Lord's  table,  I  do  not  look  around  to  ascertain  how  many 
of  the  guests  are  unworthy  to  be  in  my  company.  I  do  not  say  in  my 
thoughts.  There  is  one,  who  believes  a  little  less  than  1  do,  and  he  ought 
to  be  excluded  ;  and  there  is  another,  who  believes  a  little  more  than  I 
do,  and  he  ought  also  to  be  excluded  ;  on  my  right  is  one,  who  takes 
more  ardent  spirit  than  I  do,  and  he  should  be  excluded  ;  and  on  my 
left  is  another,  who  prays  less  in  his  family  than  I  do  in  mine,  and  he 
should  likewise  be  excluded  ;  in  that  pew  is  one,  who  has  not  been  so 
thoroughly  drenched  in  the  waters  of  baptism  as  I  have,  and  he  must  be 
excluded  ;  and  on  that  seat  is  another,  who  has  not  received  so  much 
spiritual  influence  as  I  have,  and  he  must  surely  be  excluded.  No; 
when  I  sit  down  to  commemorate  the  sufferings  and  death  of  my  Saviour, 
my  business  is  with  his  instructions  and  example,  and  with  my  own  heart 
and  character.  If  I  am  faithful  to  my  own  soul,  I  fear  no  contamination 
from  my  neighbours,  and  incur  no  guilt  in  the  sight  of  God.  With  the 
opinions  and  religious  observances  of  the  other  guests,  I  have  no  con- 
cern. They  are  answerable  for  themselves.  I  have  no  authority  to 
take  care  of  them,  nor  have  they  any  right  to  interfere  with  me.  I  merely 
wish  to  imitate  the  example  of  the  infallible  Teacher.  When  he  insti- 
tuted this  ordinance,  he  sat  down  with  twelve  disciples,  whom  he  knew 
to  be  ignorant  of  the  true  spiritual  nature  of  his  kingdom.  He  knew 
that  the  whole  number  would  soon  desert  Jiim  in  the  hour  of  peril.  He 
knew  that  one  would  deny  him  with  an  oath.  He  knew  that  another 
would  betray  him  to  tiie  death.  And  with  this  knowledge,  he  distribu- 
ted to  them  the  consecrated  elements,  and  even  passed  the  sop  to  his 
very  betrayer.  He  has  thus  left  an  example  of  the  most  unbounded 
charity  for  the  imitation  of  all  future  ages.  Whenever  a  person  wishes 
to  comply  with  the  dying  request  of  his  Saviour,  if  he  takes  the 
Scriptures  for  the  guide  of  his  faith  and  practice,  and  gives  evidence  of 
a  good  moral  character,  no  man  and  no  body  of  men,  have  any  right  to 
forbid  his  attendance  at  the  ordinance.  And  for  my  own  part,  I  should 
rather  be  in  the  situation  of  the  most  degraded  Hottentot  at  the  day  of 
judgment,  than  in  the  condition  of  that  Christian,  who  has  excluded  a 
sincere  and  humble  follower  of  Jesus  from  the  table  of  his  Master.  I 
must  consider  this  measure  unchristian  and  oppressive. 

The  next  circumstance  to  which  I  alluded  is  this.  Orthodox  churches 
claim  and  exercise  the  right  of  choosing  the  minister.  This  claim  has 
been  asserted  in  some  of  your  late  publications,  And  more  than  all, 
you  have  proceeded  to  act  on  this  principle.  You  have  erected  several 
new  churches  in  this  commonwealth,  and  have  so  bound  them  down 


LETTER  I.  55 

with  trust  deeds,  that  no  proprietor  is  allowed  to  vote  for  the  minister 
he  must  support,  unless  he  has  heen  voted  into  the  number  of  com- 
municants. How  would  this  rule  operate  in  our  old  societies?  Take 
Carlisle  for  an  example.  The  late  minister  of  that  place  preached 
thorough-going  orthodoxy,  and  would  not  admit  unitarians  into  his 
pulpit.  At  his  death  there  were  thee  male  members  in  the  church; 
twoof  them  orthodox  and  one  liberal.  Now  according  to  your  plan, 
these  two  have  the  right  to  elect  a  new  pastor;  and  if  the  society  are 
dissatisfied  with  their  choice,  they  must  retire  and  leave  these  two  in 
the  peaceable  possession  of  the  meeting-house  and  church  property. 
When  you  can  persuade  the  great  mass  of  our  citizens  to  acknowledge 
their  inability  and  incapacity  to  elect  their  own  religious  teachers,  your 
law  will  go  into  full  operation  ;  and  not  till  then.  This  claim  of  the 
orthodox  is  really  too  absurd  to  m.erit  a  moment's  discussion.  I  therefore 
leave  it  for  you  to  make  the  public  believe  that  they  are  to  enjoy  religious 
liberty,  after  they  have  surrendered  the  right  of  choosing  the  ministers 
they  are  obliged  to  support. 

The  last  circumstance  to  which  I  alluded  is  this.  Majorities  in  or- 
thodox churches  claim  and  exercise  the  right  of  holding  all  church 
property.  This  principle  may  be  illustrated  by  the  actual  proceedings 
of  several  such  majorities.  Take  the  case  of  the  church  in  this  place. 
An  orthodox  minister  was  settled  upon  the  condition  that  he  should 
leave  whenever  two  thirds  of  the  voters  should  so  decide.  After  five 
years'  ministrations,  the  question  was  taken.  But  fifteen  votes  from 
more  than  one  hundred  voters,  could  be  obtained  for  his  continuance. 
The  contract  was  therefore  legally  annulled.  He  left  the  house  with 
five  male  members.  They  took  the  records  ;  the  plate,  which  had  been 
presented  by  the  agent  of  the  manufacturing  company,  a  man  of  known 
unitarian  sentiments  ;  and  the  Bible,  which  had  been  purchased  by  a 
subscription  among  the  ladies.  Loud  complaints  were  published  that 
this  church  had  been  driven  from  their  house  of  worship  ;  when  they 
owned  not  a  cent  of  property  in  the  building,  and  might  have 
remained  there  in  the  enjoyment  of  every  Christian  right  and  privilege. 
They  soon  published  a  creed,  calling  themselves  the  Trinitarian  Con- 
gregational Church  of  Walthnm.  This  same  thing  has  been  done  in 
several  instances  during  the  past  year ;  although  the  Supreme  Court 
have  repeatedly  decided  that  such  seceders  have  no  right  to  the  church 
property.  These  decisions  were  known  at  the  very  time  by  those  who 
openly  violated  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth.  How  you  can  call 
such  conduct  consistent  with  being  peaceable  snd  obedient  subjects  of 
the  government,  is  more  than  T  can  understand.  And  how  you  can 
reconcile  the  practice  of  setting  up  a  human  creed,  so  thnt  but  few  can 
subscribe  it,  and  then  allowing  those  few  to  hold  the  property  of  the 
congregation,  is  also  inexplicable  to  me  on  any  Christian  ground.  I 
well  know  that  the  orthodox  are  aiming  to  have  the  laws  of  the  State 


56  LETTER 

so  altered,  that  a  majority  of  the  communicants  shall  hold  all  churcn 
property.  And  unless  I  am  greatly  mistaken,  a  very  deep  plot  is  laid 
for  obtaining  possession  of  our  unitarian  churches  and  funds.  I  have 
reasons  for  this  surmise  in  a  circumstance  which  has  already  occurred. 
The  facts  in  the  case  are  briefly  these.  In  a  unitarian  parish,  resided 
several  orthodox  individuals.  All  at  once  they  requested  admission  to 
the  unitarian  church.  The  minister  was  so  surprised,  that  lie  asked 
them  if  they  were  in  earnest.  They  affirmed  their  sincerity,  and  were 
accordingly  admitted.  They  then  seceded,  and  called  themselves  the 
first  church,  and  claimed  the  large  funds  of  that  body.  They  even 
endeavoured  to  have  a  council  called  to  dismiss  the  pastor  of  the  regular 
church  and  society.  Now  this  short  statement  will  serve  to  unfold  the 
whole  plot.  You  are  establishing  orthodox  churches  in  unitarian  par- 
ishes. You  make  them  up  of  individuals  from  different  and  even  distant 
places.  Of  the  ten  male  members  who  compose  the  orthodox  church 
in  this  place,  there  are  individuals  residing  in  four  or  five  difi^erent 
towns.  Well,  get  your  lav/  altered  so  that  a  majority  of  male  commu- 
nicants shall  hold  the  meeting-bouse  and  funds,  and  then  let  nil  the 
orthodox  mcmbeni  apply  for  admission  into  the  unitarian  church.  There 
would  be  nothing  in  the  creed  or  covenant  to  which  they  could  object; 
and  unitarians  could  not  consistently  refuse  their  request.  Then  they 
might  vote  the  minority  and  the  whole  society  out  of  house  and  home, 
and  take  possession  of  all  church  property.  I  can  only  say,  that  I  hope 
this  suspicion  is  altogether  groundless  ;  but  I  have  more  evidence,  sat- 
isfactory to  my  own  mind,  than  I  have  here  advanced,  or  than  I  care 
to  mention.  For  their  is  little  probability  that  you  will  ever  succeed  in 
getting  the  law  altered.  I  think  I  have  adduced  sufficient  evidence 
to  satisfy  any  one  that  orthodbx  churches  have  converted  themselves 
into  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  adopted  measures  and  claimed  rights  in- 
consistent with  free  inquiry  and  religious  liberty. 

In  the  fourth  place,  look  at  the  orthodox  conferences  of  churches.  As 
these  are  new  combinations,  I  will  give  somo  account  of  their  for- 
mation, proceedings,  and  tendency.  A  number  of  orthodox  ministers 
induce  their  several  churches  to  unite  in  a  conference  ;  and  subject 
themselves  to  certain  definite  regulations.  They  hold  quarterly  meet- 
ings in  their  respective  places  of  residence,  which  are  fully  attended 
from  all  the  branches  of  the  connexion.  They  have  preaching,  pray- 
ing, exhortation,  reports  of  the  state  of  religion,  communion,  and  con- 
tributions for  feeble  churches.  Their  transactions  are  published  in 
some  religious  newspaper,  so  far  as  it  can  be  efiected  without  ex- 
posing some  of  their  worst  features.  Now  four  circumstances  strike 
me  as  peculiarly  unchristian  and  injurious  in  these  conferences  of 
churches.  One  is  this.  The  progress  of  religion  is  measured  by  an 
unchristian  standard.  You  hear  nothing  said  of  the  increase  of  peace, 
love,  joy,  long-suffering,  gentleness,  meekness,  patience,  forbearance. 


LETTER  I.  67 

family  concord  and  harmony.  But  I  will  forbear.  I  have  before  me 
the  opinion  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hildreth  on  this  subject.  As  he  is  not  a 
party  man,  as  he  is  not  classed  with  unitarians,  as  he  expresses  the 
convictions  of  several  orthodox  ministers,  I  shall  use  his  words  as  ex- 
pressing my  own  sentiments. 

'*  In  the  first  place,  I  object  to  conferences  of  churches,  because  I 
consider  them  unfavorable  to  congregational  order  —  to  the  liberty,  or 
independence  of  individual  churches. 

"A  conference  of  churches  consists  of  a  number  of  churches  associated 
together  for  certain  purposes  by  a  written  compact  —  by  articles  adopted 
by  each  church.  Delegates  are  chosen  by  the  churches  respectively 
and  sent  with  their  pastors  to  the  conference  ;  and  delegates  from  other 
conferences  are  also  admitted.  So  far  as  I  know,  the  articles  of 
conference  do  not  expressly  delegate  any  ecclesiastical  authority ;  but 
every  body  can  see,  that  ecclesiastical  authority  and  influence  necessa- 
rily result  from  the  organization.  If  no  such  authority  or  influence 
whatever  had  been  intended  by  the  projectors,  I  very  much  doubt,  if  the 
organization  would  ever  have  been  made.     ******** 

"  In  the  second  place,  church  conferences  are  a  novelty  —  an  experi- 
ment. They  are  a  human  contrivance,  and  they  set  up  a  new  standard 
of  ministerial  and  Christian  character,  which  the  Head  of  the  Church,  in 
my  view,  has  not  authorized.     It  will  be  safe  to  remain  out  of  them. 

"  In  the  third  place,  there  is  a  display  in  these  conferences,  which  I 
greatly  dislike,  and  which  is  adapted  to  foster  the  erroneous  impres- 
sion, that  religion  is  very  low  and  languid,  unless  it  makes  a  great  deal 
of  show  and  sound.  In  this  land  of  Bibles,  of  Sabbaths,  of  public  wor- 
ship and  instruction,  I  see  no  call  for  the  whole,  or  the  half  of  a  county's 
coming  together  from  time  to  time,  to  discuss  the  state  of  religion,  to 
hear  some  great  preacher  from  abroad,  and  to  be  excited  by  a  great 
occasion.  If  we  cannot  learn  the  way  of  salvation  within  our  own 
houses,  and  under  Christian  ministrations  within  our  own  parishes,  I  am 
persuaded,  we  shall  never  learn  it  at  all.  And  I  consider  the  occasions 
in  question,  as  highly  unfavorable  to  the  usefulness  of  parish  ministers 
—  unfavorable  to  the  steady,  gentle,  and  therefore  the  most  salutary 
influence  of  the  ordinary  services  of  the  Sabbath  day.  I  believe,  that 
experience  will  show,  and  has  already  shown,  that  no  conference  of 
churches  is  broken  up  without  numbers  going  away  less  fitted  to  receive 
and  relish  the  plain  and  wholesome  instruction  of  their  ministers  at  home. 

"In  the  fourth  place,  conferences  of  churches  are  calculated,  as  I  be- 
lieve, to  diminish  the  dignity,  as  well  as  the  salutary  influence  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  by  bringing  forward,  more  than  is  for  their  own 
spiritual  good,  a  class  of  lay  brethren,  who  have  great  need  of  learning 
meekness  and  modesty  at  home,  instead  of  coming  before  the  public  to 
make  speeches  about  the  state  of  religion." 

I  will  add  but  one  further  observation  on  this  topic.    The  liberty  of 
individual  churches  is  destroyed  by  these  conferences.    Yes ;  I  regard 
8 


58  LETTER  L 

the  orthodox  conferences  of  churches  as  but  another  name  for  con- 
sociationSi  They  bring  ministers  and  churches  into  utter  servitude^ 
This  is  acknowledged  by  some  of  the  wortliy  orthodox  divines  of 
this  state  ;  and  on  this  account  they  will  have  no  part  nor  lot  in  such 
measures.  Their  tyrannical  power  has  not  yet  been  exercised  to  any 
very  great  extent ;  but  let  one  minister  of  their  body  become  unita- 
rian, and  he  would  be  tried  and  punished  for  his  honest  opinions. 
Let  a  church  attempt  to  hear  a  unitarian  candidate,  and  they  would  soon 
learn  that  their  liberty  was  sacrificed.  I  hope  the  public  will  awake 
to  this  most  alarming  encroachment  on  congregational  rights,  equality, 
and  independency.  I  hope  parishes  will  no  longer  suffer  themselves 
to  be  slandered  by  their  ministers  and  neighbours,  simply  because  they 
have  not  assented  to  the  articles  of  a  human  creed.  I  hope  churches 
will  discover  the  snare  set  for  the  destruction  of  their  rights  of  free 
inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  Congregationalism. 

I  have  room  for  no  more  facts  under  this  head.  What  then  must 
be  our  conclusion  ?  Do  not  the  facts  I  have  stated  fully  prove,  that 
the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  have  attempted  to  establish,  and  in 
several  instances  have  actually  established,  ecclesiastical  tribunals,  so 
that  the  supposed  mistakes  and  errors  of  ministers  and  private  Chris- 
tians have  been  tried  and  punished  as  heresies  ;  that  is,  as  crimes  ? 
And  do  not  the  same  facts  fully  prove,  that  such  tribunals  are  subver- 
sive of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congrega- 
tionalism? I  must  conclude  that  both  propositions  are  perfectly  de- 
monstrated. 
IV.  Measures  for  organizing  and  establishing  feeble  churches. 

In  the  fourth  place,  I  invite  your  attention  to  the  measures  adopted 
by  the  orthodox  for  organizing  and  establishing  feeble  churches  in 
unitarian  parishes.  I  think  the  facts,  which  I  shall  adduce  under  this 
head,  will  prove  the  two  following  propositions.  First,  that  the  meas- 
ures recently  adopted  for  increasing  the  number  of  orthodox  churches 
are  unchristian.  And,  secondly,  that  such  measures  are  subversive  of 
free  inquiry,  religious  libert}^  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism* 
My  limits  will  permit  me  to  notice  but  five  different  classes  of  facts 
under  this  general  division. 

1.  Measures  for  organizing  a  feeble  Church.  Pirst.  Look  at  the 
measures  adopted  by  orthodox  leaders  to  organize  a  feeble  church  in  a 
unitarian  parish.  The  circumstances  are  generally  these.  There  are 
a  few  orthodox  individuals,  principally  females,  in  unitarian  societies. 
These  are  visited  by  orthodox  ministers,  and  urged  to  secede  and  form 
themselves  into  an  evangelical  church  Others  are  pointed  out  who 
are  supposed  to  be  wavering,  and  these  are  also  treated  in  tlie  same 
manner.  They  are  assured  that  their  present  pastor  does  not  preach 
the  truth,  but  is  leading  his  people  to  destruction.  They  are  cautioned 
to  conceal  from  their  husbands  the  contemplated  separation,  and  told 
that  opposition  muat  be  expected  in  the  cause  of  God.    Having  enlisted 


LETTER  I.  59 

a  small  party,  a  day  is  appointed  for  the  organization  of  the  feeble 
church.  Orthodox  ministers  are  present ;  some  of  them  bring  their 
own  church  members,  to  help  make  up  a  decent  number  for  the  new 
body.  In  this  way  the  evangelical  church  is  organized,  consisting  of 
some  four  or  more  females,  and  perhaps  one  or  more  males,  residents 
in  the  place  ;  and  several  males  and  females  from  neighbouring  and 
distant  towns.  And  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  in  most  instances,  the 
seceders  from  unitarian  churches,  have  been  urged  to  this  measure  by 
the  conversation,  preaching,  and  writings  of  orthodox  ministers.  Such 
are  some  of  the  measures  adopted  for  organizing  feeble  churches  in 
this  commonwealth. 

Now  is  this  conduct  of  the  orthodox  leaders  truly  Christian  ?  Is 
this  doing,  as  you  would  wish  unitarian  ministers  to  do  unto  you? 
Were  you  ordained  over  a  united  parish,  should  you  wish  unitarian 
preachers  to  come  into  your  society,  visit  among  your  people,  assure 
your  hearers  that  you  were  leading  them  to  hell  blindfold,  and  urge 
them  to  separate  from  your  communion,  and  form  themselves  into  a 
liberal  church  ?  This  question  was  put  to  one  of  your  leaders  while 
engaged  in  this  work  of  division.  And  what  answer  do  you  suppose  he 
returned  to  the  unitarian  minister  ?  These  are  the  words.  "  O  you 
cannot  do  this,  for  it  is  contrary  to  your  principles."  Is  this  a  sufficient 
excuse  ?  Suppose  my  neighbour  should  come  to  my  bam,  and  take 
away  my  cow.  Suppose  I  should  discover  him  while  engaged  in  the 
business,  and  ask  him,  if  he  was  doing  towards  me  as  he  should  wish 
me  to  do  unto  him  ?  Suppose  he  should  answer,  "  O  you  cannot  do 
this,  for  it  is  contrary  to  your  principles."  Because  my  principles 
would  not  permit  me  to  steal,  does  this  excuse  my  neighbour's  theft  ? 
Are  not  such  measures  truly  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious  lib- 
erty, and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  7 

2.  Measures  for  erecting  a  meetinghouse  for  a  feeble  church.  Secondly. 
Look  at  some  of  the  orthodox  measures  for  erecting  a  place  of  worship 
for  a  feeble  church.  Take  the  proceedings  in  relation  to  the  one  in 
Billerica,  since  you  sanctioned  them  by  preaching  the  sermon  at  the 
dedication.  The  circumstances  are  briefly  these.  A  few  years  since,  the 
leaders  of  your  party,  and  the  members  of  the  Andover  Association 
generally,  determined  that  an  orthodox  church  must  be  established  in 
this  peculiarly  united  and  peaceable  town.  The  last  year,  the  Rev. 
Drs.  Beecher  and  Fay,  and  Mr.  Bennett,  proceeded  to  organize  a  feeble 
body,  collected  mostly  from  neighbouring  communions.  A  house  of 
worship  is  then  needed.  And  how  can  it  be  obtained  ?  The  members 
of  the  society  by  great  pinching  raise  something  like  two  hundred 
dollars  ;  and  one  hundred  more  is  literally  extorted  from  a  single  lady 
by  over-persuasion.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Bennett  is  employed  to  raise  the 
remainder  by  hard  begging.  He  accordingly  rides  most  of  the  summer, 
and  visits  many  of  the  towns  in  this  Commonwealth.     He  had  prepared 


60  LETTER  I. 

a  very  peculiar  discourse,  of  which  I  have  received  several  abstracts. 
I  will  therefore  give  you  some  of  his  remarks  in  his  own  words. 
"  I  stand  before  you  as  a  beggar  for  Billerica.  I  have  vowed  to  the 
Lord,  that  I  will  obtain  sufficient  funds  to  build  a  meetinghouse  in  that 
place.  There  is  great  need  of  one.  The  gospel  has  not  been  preached 
there  for  fifty  years.  Religion  and  morals  are  at  a  very  low  ebb. 
They  have  no  sabbath.  The  town  is  a  moral  waste.  It  is  a  proper 
missionary  station.  The  people  are  in  a  heathenish  condition.  No 
longer  ago  than  three  years,  there  was  but  one  Christian  in  the  place, 
and  she  was  a  female.  But  the  neighbouring  ministers  have  taken  pity 
on  their  deplorable  condition.  Several  converts  have  been  made  by  my 
instrumentality.  I  call  them  my  children.  And  they  want  a  meeting- 
house. It  is  your  duty  to  give  to  this  object.  It  is  your  duty  to  send 
the  gospel  to  the  heathen  at  home  as  well  as  the  heathen  abroad.  Give. 
If  you  have  no  money,  give  something  else.  Give  your  watches,  your 
necklaces,  your  finger-rings.  If  you  cannot  give  a  spike,  give  a  nail ; 
if  you  cannot  give  a  nail,  give  a  brad."  Perhaps  you  will  think  I  have 
exaggerated  his  statements.  But  T  have  put  down  the  very  words  and 
phrases  that  proceeded  from  his  mouth ;  and  respectable  men  in  all 
parts  of  the  Commonwealth  stand  ready  to  testify  to  tlie  truth  and 
accuracy  of  my  record. 

Now  in  view  of  all  these  measures,  you  came  and  dedicated  the 
house,  although  you  were  obliged  to  bespeak  and  pay  for  your  dinner 
on  the  occasion.  And  after  a  suitable  man  was  selected  for  this  mis- 
sionary station,  some  thirty  ministers  of  your  party  aided  in  his  ordina- 
tion, and  then  bound  themselves  to  contribute  about  two  thirds  of  his 
salary  for  a  limited  time.  And  all  this  mountain  labor  for  what  pur- 
pose ?  The  number  of  hearers  ranges  from  five  to  fifty,  taking  men, 
women,  and  children  ;  and  the  fair  average  in  good  weather  is  from 
thirty  to  forty.  The  larger  part  of  them  could  be  accommodated  with 
orthodox  preaching  much  nearer  in  neighbouring  towns.  And  because 
the  heathen  people  in  Billerica  will  not  permit  your  missionary  to 
insult  them  in  their  own  houses,  the  cry  of  persecution  is  raised. 
Will  the  public  sanction  these  orthodox  measures  7  Can  you  expect 
the  blessing  of  God  upon  a  church  erected  by  such  means  ?  Is  this 
the  way  that  Christ  propagated  his  religion?  I  wish  all  concerned 
would  read  the  history  of  his  life,  with  a  particular  reference  to  his 
measures  for  spreading  the  true  faith. 

Now,  Sir,  what  do  you  think  of  such  proceedings  ?  I  say  you  ;  for 
I  have  no  disposition  to  cast  the  blame  of  this  affair  on  Mr.  Bennet 
What  I  should  consider  heinous  crime  in  another,  I  regard  as  lament- 
able misfortune  in  him.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  attributing  his  ludicrous 
movements,  his  ridiculous  statements,  his  base  misrepresentations,  his 
aggravated  offences  against  all  decency,  to  some  mental  disorder. 
Neither  would  I  be  so  unjust  as  to  blame  the  orthodox  generally  for 


LETTER  I.  64 

this  outrage  upon  the  peace  and  reputation  of  a  highly  distinguished 
country  village.  For  I  know  full  well  that  very  many  of  the  more  sober 
members  of  your  denomination  have  taken  no  part  nor  lot  in  this 
matter  ;  but  have  spoken  of  the  course  pursued  with  marked  disappro- 
bation. I  also  know  that  some  clergymen  have  been  unwilling  to  let 
him  preach  his  begging  discourse  in  their  pulpits.  I  likewise  know, 
that  one  orthodox  association  requested  Dr.  Church  to  write  to  some 
individual  in  this  vicinity,  and  persuade  him  to  regulate  Mr.  Bennett's 
movements  ;  and  that  Dr.  Codman  was  mentioned  as  a  suitable  person 
for  such  business.  But  I  wish  the  public  censure  to  rest  on  those 
individuals  who  employ  this  man  to  say  and  do  things  which  they  dare 
not  utter  and  transact  themselves.  And  who  are  they?  Why,  the 
leaders  of  the  orthodox  denomination.  For  when  this  man  arose 
on  one  occasion  to  deliver  his  slanders  on  Harvard  College,  he  read 
a  commissicm  from  the  committee  of  the  Pastoral  Association.  This 
association  is  composed  of  most  of  the  orthodox  ministers  in  the  Com- 
monwealth. Their  committee  consists  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Codman  and 
some  of  the  Boston  clergy.  Let  it  then  be  known,  that  a  few  Doctors 
in  divinity  have  employed  this  man  to  raise  funds  for  the  erection  of 
new  churches  for  feeble  orthodox  societies ;  and  that  he  acts  under 
your  commission. 

If  the  community  will  countenance  such  proceedings,  we  have  no  safety 
for  our  reputation  as  individuals  or  towns.  First  Billerica  is  slandered 
most  grossly ;  for  it  is  well  known  that  it  stands  far  above  most  of  the 
orthodox  towns  in  the  county  for  mental,  moral,  and  religious  improve- 
ment. And  had  -the  same  remarks  been  made  concerning  an  individual, 
the  Reverend  gentleman  would  have  been  prosecuted  for  defamation  of 
character.  Next  comes  Cambridge,  and  the  venom  of  the  orthodox 
party  against  the  ancient  university  in  that  place,  is  poured  out  over 
the  whole  Commonwealth.  Legal  gentlemen  have  pronounced  his 
statements  slanderous  and  actionable  ;  but  the  instrument  is  considered 
too  contemptible  for  prosecution.  Whose  turn  will  come  next,  I  know 
not.  I  hope  orthodox  Christians,  who  despise  the  principle,  that  the 
end  sanctifies  the  means,  will  raise  their  voice  upon  such  subjects. 
For  it  becomes  them  to  remember,  that  the  same  crusade  might  be 
waged  against  the  peace  and  reputation  of  their  own  societies,  were 
the  unitarians  sufficiently  bewildered  to  engage  in  such  an  undertaking. 
And  every  man  must  pronounce  these  measures  unchristian,  and  incon- 
sistent with  free  inquiry  and  religious  liberty. 

3.  Measures  for  Jilling  the  new  meetinghouse.  Thirdly.  Look  at 
some  of  the  measures  adopted  by  the  orthodox  for  filling  the  new  house 
of  worship.  An  appeal  is  made  to  some  of  the  lowest  principles  of 
human  nature.  In  almost  every  town,  there  are  more  or  fewer  individu- 
als who  are  at  variance,  either  with  their  minister,  or  with  his  warm 
friends.    They  are  ready  to  pursue  a  course  which  may  prove  injurious 


62  LETTER  I. 

to  their  supposed  enemies.  Such  persons  are  visited  by  the  orthodox 
leaders,  and  assured  that  their  secession  must  weaken  and  help  to 
destroy  the  old  society.  Thus  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  principle  of  re- 
venge.—  In  almost  every  town,  tliere  are  more  or  fewer  individuals  who 
love  their  money  better  tlian  their  religion.  They  are  for  ever  com- 
plaining of  the  burden  of  tlieir  taxes ;  and  are  always  ready  to  secede 
when  it  can  be  done  without  the  sacrifice  of  too  much  popularity. 
Such  persons  are  visited  by  the  orthodox  leaders ;  and  promised  an 
exemption  from  ministerial  taxes  for  a  certain  period  ;  and  after  that 
time,  nothing  but  their  voluntary  contributions  will  be  required.  Thus 
an  appeal  is  made  to  the  principle  of  avarice.  —  In  almost  every  town, 
there  are  more  or  fewer  individuals  who  think  themselves  too  much 
neglected.  They  complain,  either  that  their  minister  has  not  paid  them 
sufficient  attention,  or  that  their  fellow-citizens  have  not  noticed  them 
according  to  their  deserts.  Such  persons  are  visited,  and  treated  with 
a  comfortable  dose  of  flattery,  and  made  to  believe  that  they  shall  be  of 
the  first  importance  in  the  new  society.  Thus  an  appeal  is  made  to 
the  principle  of  vanity.  —  In  almost  every  town,  there  are  more  or  fewer 
individuals,  who  have  no  fixed  religious  opinions.  They  wish  to  be 
very  good,  and  are  afi*aid  of  being  too  liberal  in  their  sentiments. 
Such  persons  are  visited,  being  mostly  females,  and  are  assured  that 
the  orthodox  is  at  least  the  safest  course  ;  that  tliere  can  be  no  danger 
on  their  ground  ;  while  they  are  exposed  to  imminent  peril  so  long  as 
they  remain  unitarian.  Thus  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  principle  of 
fear.  —  In  these  several  ways,  some  few  are  obtained  to  fill  up  the  new 
meetinghouse.  And  this  brief  statement  will  also  serve  to  explain  the 
circumstance,  that  in  your  new  and  feebla  societies,  there  are  so  many 
varieties  of  opinion  and  character.  It  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  the 
large  majority  are  females,  that  some  of  the  males  are  unitarians,  some 
universalists,  some  nothingarians,  and  some  unbelievers.  Let  unitarian 
preachers  adopt  similar  measures  in  orthodox  parishes,  and  would  not 
their  success  be  a  hundred- fold  ? 

4.  Measures  for  supporting  the  feeble  society.  Fourthly.  Look  at  the 
measures  adopted  for  the  support  of  the  feeble  society.  A  system  of 
begging  must  be  practised  for  the  maintenance  of  the  minister.  His 
parishioners  are  taxed  to  the  full  extent  of  tlieir  ability  ;  and  tlien  con- 
tributions and  subscriptions  are  occasionally  solicited  to  make  up  some 
deficiencies.  Persons  who  attend  the  ordination  are  attacked,  and  bind 
themselves  and  their  societies  to  contribute  so  much  annually  for  five 
years.  An  appeal  is  also  made  to  the  Domestic  Missionary  Society, 
which  has  large  funds  for  this  very  object.  Besides  all  these  means, 
it  is  generally  understood,  that  a  large  fund  has  been  raised  for  the 
express  purpose  of  establishing  and  maintaining  orthodox  societies 
within  the  borders  of  unitarian  parishes.  In  these  several  ways,  the 
minister  receives  a  comfortable  subsistence. 


LETTER  I.  63 

In  order  to  increase  the  number  of  hearers,  the  minister  adopts 
several  singular  measures.  He  calls  upon  unitarian  families,  and 
requests  them  to  come  and  hear  his  reasons  for  being  settled  over  the 
new  society.  He  visits  others,  and  assures  them  that  their  pastor  is 
not  converted,  that  he  does  not  preach  the  gospel,  that  he  feels  no 
affection  for  their  soul-s.  He  assures  them  that  their  pastor  does  not 
preach  his  real  sentiments,  that  he  does  not  believe  the  sentiments  he 
advances,  that  he  is  a  universalist  or  an  infidel.  He  assures  them, 
that  their  pastor  is  not  a  minister  of  Christ,  that  his  communicants  do 
not  constitute  a  Christian  church,  and  that  his  ordinances  are  not 
Christian  institutions.  He  assures  them,  that  their  pastor  is  a  blind 
guide,  has  renounced  the  grand  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  and 
widely  departed  from  the  principles  of  the  Pilgrim  fathers.  He  assures 
them,  that  he  shall  regard  no  parish  limits,  but  endeavour  to  convert  all 
who  are  not  already  orthodox  in  sentiment.  In  this  way,  he  disgusts 
many,  and  probably  frightens  a  few  into  his  system  of  operations. 

But  the  great  instrument  of  increase  is  a  revival  ;  and  for  the  pro- 
duction of  one  of  these  religious  excitements,  the  minister  and  his 
church  labor  incessantly.  For  they  are  aware  that  there  are  some 
thoughtless  persons  who  may  be  easily  drawn  in  by  such  a  system  of 
operations.  And  the  character  of  the  minister,  as  a  successful  pastor, 
depends  on  his  success  in  getting  up  these  excitements.  If  he  should 
not  be  able  after  one  or  two  years  to  accomplish  this  object,  he  is  dis- 
missed from  his  society.  And  what  is  the  reason  assigned  ?  Simply 
this.  "  We  do  not  think  you  well  adapted  to  build  up  a  new  society." 
Yes  ;  let  a  minister  over  one  of  your  feeble  churches,  be  as  eloquent 
and  faithful  as  Paul,  let  him  be  really  instrumental  in  making  those 
who  attend  his  ministry  pious  Christians  ;  still  he  will  be  dismissed 
unless  he  is  successful  in  drawing  from  the  unitarian  society.  I  have 
been  astonished,  when  I  have  seen  young  men  of  ingenuous  feelings, 
and  good  abilities,  and  respectable  acquirements,  thus  blindly  led  about 
by  the  chiefs  of  your  party,  and  subjected  to  such  a  life  of  slavery  and 
degradation.  I  can  account  for  the  fact,  only  on  the  supposition  that 
the  number  of  orthodox  candidates  is  large,  and  that  they  imbibe 
largely  of  the  party  spirit  of  their  instructors.  Now  just  suppose  that 
unitarians  should  adopt  sinrilar  measures  in  orthodox  societies.  Would 
you  call  them  the  most  Christian,  and  the  most  liberal  ? 

5.  Reasons  for  establishing  new  Churches.  Fifthly.  Look  at  some 
of  the  reasons  for  establishing  new  orthodox  churches.  What  can 
they  be  ?  Do  you  establish  these  feeble  churches  for  the  salvation  of 
souls  ?  No  ;  you  will  not  pretend  to  give  this  reason.  For  in  your 
creed  the  doctrine  of  election  is  fully  declared.  This  teaches  that  God 
has  chosen  a  certain,  limited  number  for  heaven,  and  foreordained  the 
remainder  to  an  everlasting  hell.  It  also  teaches  that  the  number  of 
the  elect  is  definite^  so  that  neither  more  nor  less  can  be  saved.    This 


64  '  LETTER  I. 

doctrine  is  still  retained  in  its  original  import  In  a  tract  lately  pub- 
lished, said  to  have  been  written  by  Dr.  Beecher,  the  principal  agent 
in  this  work  of  disorganization,  I  find  these  words.  "  Some  he,  God, 
saves.  There  is  a  part  he  rescues  from  themselves  and  from  perdition. 
This  number  is  definite."  Now  if  you  say,  the  number  of  the  elect 
is  not  definite,  you  give  up  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election.  And 
if  you  allow  that  the  number  is  definite,  then  you  must  admit,  that  not 
one  soul  more  will  be  saved,  by  the  establishment  of  your  feeble 
churches.  No  ;  none  but  the  elect  can  be  saved,  and  they  will  be 
received  to  heaven  at  any  rate  ;  and  none  but  the  reprobate  can  be 
damned,  and  they  must  go  to  hell  in  spite  of  orthodox  exertions.  So 
that  if  you  are  consistent  in  your  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  you 
will  never  pretend  that  your  new  churches  have  been  organized  for 
the  salvation  of  souls. 

Will  you  say  that  the  seceders  from  unitarian  congregations  were 
ever  deprived  of  a  single  Christian  right  ?  Let  us  descend  to  particu- 
lars. Were  such  seceders  denied  the  Christian  name  ?  No  ;  so  long 
as  they  professed  their  belief  in  a  divine  revelation,  and  exhibited  a 
Christian  character,  this  name  was  cheerfully  granted  to  them.  Were 
they  denied  access  to  the  Christian  ordinances  ?  No ;  if  they  gave 
Scriptural  evidence  of  being  true  believers,  their  children  were  will- 
ingly baptized,  and  they  were  cordially  welcomed  to  the  Lord's  table. 
Were  they  denounced  week  after  week  as  infidels,  and  coolly  con- 
signed to  endless  burnings  for  their  honest  opinions  ?  No ;  they 
were  never  condemned  for  studying  and  understanding  the  Scriptures 
for  themselves.  Were  they  obliged  to  hear  doctrines  advocated  which 
shocked  their  very  souls.?  No;  their  complaint  has  usually  been, 
that  the  unitarian  preacher  did  not  go  far  enough ;  that  so  far  as  he 
went,  he  was  very  good.  And  I  have  no  doubt,  that  if  they  had  judged 
our  Saviour's  preaching  by  the  same  rule,  they  would  have  come  to 
the  same  conclusion.  In  short,  can  you  mention  a  Christian  right  of 
which  seceders  firom  unitarian  churches  were  ever  deprived  by  their 
liberal  brethren  ?  If  not,  you  will  not  pretend  that  your  new  societies 
are  formed,  so  that  the  seceders  can  enjoy  their  Christian  rights. 

Now  how  very  diflferent  is  the  treatment  of  those  unitarians  who  reside 
in  orthodox  societies  !  They  are  denied  the  Christian  name,  and  de- 
nounced as  unbelievers.  They  are  denied  access  to  the  Christian 
ordinances,  and  condemned  for  their  honest  interpretations  of  Scrip- 
ture. They  are  held  up  in  orthodox  prayers  and  sermons,  as  objects  of 
man's  pity  and  God's  displeasure.  They  are  deliberately  sentenced  to 
hell  for  obeying  Christ  to  the  best  of  their  understanding.  And  at  this 
very  moment,  many  orthodox  ministers  receive  more  than  half  their 
support  from  unitarian  funds;  for  a  majority  of  their  parishes  have 
embraced  unitarian  sentiments.  And  were  unitarians  to  imitate  the 
example  of  the  orthodox,  in  establishing  a  new  church  wherever  a  few 


LETTER  I.  65 

individuals  could  be  collected,  they  might  form  more  than  a  thousand 
unitarian  societies  forthwith.  And  are  not  the  deprivations  and  perse- 
cutions to  which  they  are  subjected  by  orthodox  tyranny  sufficient  to 
justify  them  in  such  an  undertaking  ? 

Perhaps  you  will  ask,  if  the  orthodox  have  not  a  perfect  right  to 
adopt  measures  for  the  propagation  of  their  peculiar  faith.  Undoubt- 
edly. You  have  a  right  to  adopt  and  pursue  any  Christian  measures. 
But  will  you  call  all  the  measures  which  I  have  mentioned  truly  Chris- 
tian ?  Should  you  wish  me  to  come  into  your  united  and  peaceable 
society,  and  create  divisions  in  families,  neighbourhoods,  and  churches  ? 
especially,  if  my  creed  assured  me  that  not  one  more  soul  would  be 
saved  by  all  my  exertions.  Should  you  wish  me  to  travel  from  town 
to  town,  slandering  your  parish,  exciting  the  pity  of  the  community  for 
your  heathen  condition,  in  order  to  obtain  funds  for  the  erection  of  a 
new  house  of  worship  for  some  thirty  or  forty  seceders  ?  Would  this 
be  doing  as  you  would  wish  me  to  do  unto  you  ?  If  not,  you  cannot 
call  such  measures  Christian.  And  if  they  are  not  Christian,  can  you 
expect  the  blessing  of  God  upon  such  labors  ?  Can  you  believe  that 
a  God  of  truth  and  righteousness  will  prosper  churches  which  have 
been  established  by  intrigue,  and  denunciation,  and  misrepresentation, 
and  extortion  ?  I  know  that  the  miser  is  so  prospered  as  to  become 
rich  in  gold.  But  he  is  generally  cursed  by  his  very  wealth.  And  I 
am  constrained  to  believe,  that  many  of  your  feeble  churches  will 
prove  a  curse  to  your  denomination.  At  first  they  may  spring  up  like 
the  seed  sown  among  thorns,  and  on  stony  ground,  and  by  the  way- 
side ;  but  they  will  wither  away  and  perish  before  the  rising  sun  of 
truth  and  righteousness. 

What  then  must  be  our  conclusion?  Do  not  the  facts  which  I  have 
stated  fully  prove,  that  the  measures  of  the  orthodox  for  establishing 
feeble  churches  are  unchristian  ?  And  do  they  not  also  fully  prove, 
that  such  measures  are  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty, 
and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  ?  I  must  conclude  that  both 
propositions  are  perfectly  demonstrated. 

V.  Denunciations. 

In  the  fifth  place,  I  invite  your  attention  to  some  of  the  or- 
thodox denunciations  of  unitarians.  I  think  the  quotations  I  shall 
make  from  the  writings  of  your  authors  will  prove  the  two  fol- 
lowing distinct  propositions.  First,  that  the  leaders  of  your  par- 
ty have  denied  unitarians  almost  every  Christian  right,  and  called 
them  by  almost  every  unchristian  name.  And,  secondly,  that  all  such 
uncharitable  revilings  are  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty, 
and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism.  My  limits  will  permit  me  to 
notice  but  twelve  different  classes  of  orthodox  denunciations  under  this 
general  head,  though  I  could  easily  increase  the  number  to  twelve 
times  twelve. 


66  LETTER  I. 

1.  Tht  Orthodox  deny  Unitarians  the  Christian  JSTame.  First  Look  at 
those  passages  in  which  orthodox  writers  have  denied  unitarians  the 
.Christian  name.  My  first  extract  shnll  be  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Pil- 
grims." "I  have  no  hesitation  in  sayintr,  that  were  the  orthodox,  with 
their  creed  and  views,  to  treat  unitarians  as  if  they  believed  them  to  be 
Christians,  and  in  a  safe  state,  they  would  indeeti  be  guilty  of  the 
most  atrocious  cruelty  that  one  moral  agent  could  well  manifest  to- 
wards another."  There  is  very  little  dang-er,  that  any  of  the  writers 
in  this  periodical  journal  will  ever  be  punished  for  their  cruelty  of 
treating^  unitarians  as  if  they  believed  them  to  be  Christians. 

My  second  quotation  shall  be  from  the  Letters  of  Canonicus.  "  That 
those,  who,  understanding  at  the  time  what  they  say,  deny  the  original 
and  entire  corruption  of  the  human  heart,  the  divinity  and  atonement 
of  Christ,  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  gratuitous  pardon  through 
the  merits  of  the  Redeemer,  and  the  everlasting  punishment  of  the 
impenitent,  are  Chridians,  they  [the  orthodox]  cannot  concede,  without 
renouncing  all  their  mnin  principles."  That  the  orthodox  cannot  call 
unitarians  Christians  without  renouncing  all  their  main  principles,  re- 
minds me  of  the  observation  of  a  zealous  lady  of  your  denomination  ; 
who  declared,  that  if  she  gave  up  her  total  depravity,  she  must  re- 
nounce all  her  religion. 

My  last  passage  shall  be  from  your  friend.  Dr.  Miller.  "You  are 
prepared,  I  hope,  to  decide  promptly,  and  without  wavering,  that  uni- 
tarians are  by  no  means  to  be  considered  as  Christians,  in  any  scriptural 
'^tose  of  the  word.  Rely  on  it,  my  friends,  unitarians  have  been  too 
long  courteously  called  Christians,  and  recognised  as  such  by  the  or- 
thodox around  them.  We  have  too  long  suffered  the  principles  of 
worldly  politeness  to  betray  us  into  unfaithfulness  to  the  cause  of  our 
master."  I  hope  neither  you  nor  your  friends  will  sorrow  immoderate- 
ly, that  the  principles  of  worldly  politeness  have  betrayed  you  into  too 
charitable  treatment  of  your  unitarian  brethren.  I  can  offer  you 
but  one  word  of  consolation  under  your  deep  penitence  for  the  aggra- 
vated crime.  It  becomes  you  to  remember,  that  this  very  conduct 
which  you  lament  was  foreordained  by  your  God,  and  that  he  will  ex- 
cuse you  for  not  doing  better  than  he  had  decreed,  because  he  with- 
held from  you  the  necessary  power  and  ability. 

Now  argument  is  useless  on  this  question.  When  I  hear  a  person 
declare  his  firm  belief  in  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  and  see 
him  take  the  Scriptures  as  his  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
and  search  them  with  honesty  and  perseverance  and  devotion,  and 
exhibit  a  holy  temper  and  character,  and  manifest  a  willingness 
even  to  lay  down  his  life  in  defence  of  his  religious  faith,  my 
conscience  compels  me  to  grant  him  the  Christian  name,  although  ho 
rejects  some  of  the  most  precious  articles  of  my  belief.     And  if  the 


LETTER  1.  67 

conscience  of  the  orthodox  does  not  move  them  to  perform  this  act  oj 
justice  towards  their  liberal  brethren  ;  if  it  does  not  require  them  to 
do  unto  others  as  they  would  have  others  do  unto  them,  no  reason- 
ino-  can  ever  induce  them  to  perform  this  duty,  or  convince  them 
of  this  error.  I  therefore  leave  you  to  decide  the  question,  how 
such  a  denial,  for  no  better  reasons,  can  be  consistent  with  free 
inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism. 
Have  not  unitarians  the  same  Scriptural  right,  and  as  much  reason, 
to  deny  the  Christian  name  to  the  orthodox  denomination? 

2.  The  Orlhothox  deny  Unitarians  the  Chnstian  Character.  Secondly. 
Look  at  those  passages  in  which  orthodox  writers  have  denied  unitari- 
ans the  Christian  character,  and  endeavoured  to  make  the  community 
believe  they  were  irreligious  and  immoral  in  their  lives.  My  first  quo- 
tation shall  be  from  the  sermon  of  your  friend.  Dr.  Beecher,  at  Wor- 
cester. "  It  requires  no  proof,  but  universal  observation,  to  support 
the  position,  that  the  irreligious,  immoral,  and  voluptuous  part  of  the 
community  prefer  the  liberal  system,  and  are  vehement  in  their  oppo- 
sition to  the  evangelical  system.  If  this  assertion  needs  confirmation, 
assemble  the  pleasure-loving  and  licentious  community  of  the  world  ; 
the  patrons  of  balls,  and  theatres,  and  masquerades ;  and  if  they  sup- 
port the  preaching  of  any  system  of  doctrines,  is  it  not  substantially  the 
liberal  system  ?  "  When  the  Reverend  Doctor  wrote  this  paragraph, 
he  probably  forgot,  that  several  of  the  orthodox  cities  in  our  country 
support  more  than  four  times  as  many  theatres,  and  balls,  and  mas- 
querades, as  the  unitarian  city  of  Boston  ;  and  that  the  state  of  morals 
in  this  liberal  city,  according  to  its  population,  is  very  much  superior 
to  that  of  most  of  the  evangelical  cities  in  the  union. 

My  next  quotation  shall  be  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims."  "  Uni- 
tarianism,  as  a  system,  is  very  agreeable  to  the  natural,  unhumbled 
heart,  is  specially  adapted  to  the  tastes  and  inclinations  of  the  gay, 
thoughtless,  and  fashionable  world,  denying  them  no  liberties  or  gratifi- 
cations which  come  any  where  within  the  bounds  of  decency,  while  it  quiets 
their  consciences  with  the  name  and  forms  of  religion,  and  allays  the  fear 
of  death  by  promising  happiness  beyond  the  grave  ;  and  it  will  not  be 
thought  strange,  with  all  this  variety  of  adaptation,  preparation,  and 
influence,  that  a  considerable  number  of  individuals  and  churches  ivert 
secretly,  and  it  may  be  almost  imperceptibly,  corrupted."  Now  I  was 
not  before  aware,  that  most  of  our  civil  fathers  were  such  vile, 
corrupted  characters.  One  of  your  writers  has  been  looking  over  the 
Registers  for  several  of  the  last  years,  and  he  is  astonished  to  find 
that  almost  all  our  public  officers  have  belonged  to  the  liberal  party. 
And  he  sums  up  the  result  of  his  investigations  in  this  sentence. 
"  And  more  than  nine  tenths  of  the  political  infuence  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  unitarians."  I  rejoice  in  the  orthodox  authority  for  this  fact,  for 
two  reasons.    First,  every  man  can  look  to  our  public  men,  and  de- 


68  LETTER  I. 

termine  if  the  nine  unitarians  are  wicked  characters,  while  the  one 
orthodox  is  the  only  godly  officer.  And  secondly,  persons  at  a  distance 
will  readily  conclude,  that  the  wisest,  ablest,  and  best  men  are  elected 
to  office  in  Massachusetts  ;  and  accordingly  determine  that  unitarians 
sustain  tlie  fairest  reputation  in  the  land. 

My  two  last  quotations  shall  be,  one  from  the  "  Recorder,"  and  the  other 
from  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims."  "  By  his  writings  for  ten  years  past, 
Dr.  Channing  has  taken  the  lead  among  the  enemies  of  the  ortho- 
dox ;  and  who  are  the  enemies  of  the  orthodox  ?  Why,  every  infidel, 
and  disorganizer,  and  sabbath-breaker,  and  debauchee,  and  gambler,  and 
every  haunter  of  grogshops  and  theatres  in  the  land.  The  orthodox 
are  honored  with  the  uniform  and  unrelenting  hatred  of  all  the  haters 
of  good  order,  the  haters  of  virtue,  the  haters  of  God."  What,  my 
dear  Sir,  Dr.  Channing  at  the  head  of  a  party  which  includes  all  these 
vile  characters  ?  and  is  this  the  way  to  answer  his  arguments  ?  And 
now  for  the  passage  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims."  "  We  cannot 
contemplate  the  career  of  Dr.  Channing  but  with  extreme  pain.  He 
was  once  a  very  serious-minded  man,  a  professed  believer  in  what  we 
deem  the  religion  of  the  Bible.  But  of  this  faith  he  has  made  ship- 
wreck, and  has  been  among  the  first  to  let  in  that  flood  of  infidelity, 
which,  under  a  fashionable  name,  has  swept  over  the  altars  of  New 
England.  When  licentiousness  has  reached  its  height  in  our  land,  and 
a  jubilee  is  proclaimed  to  those  in  the  upper  classes  of  society  who  have 
hitherto  been  withheld  hy  public  opinion  from  an  open  renunciation  of  the 
sabbath^  Dr.  Channing  will  be  referred  to  as  the  gifted  mind,  who, 
with  commendable  caution,  first  unloosed  the  yoke  of  a  superstitious 
observance.  May  it  appear  in  the  judgment  that  he  fled  at  last  to  that 
cross  as  his  only  hope,  and  that  he  did  not  go  into  eternity  till  the 
blood  shed  for  the  remission  of  siris  ivas  applied  to  his  soul,  and  his 
peace  was  made  with  God  through  the  atonement  of  his  Son."  Such 
language  can  excite  nothing  but  pity  for  the  writer  in  the  mind  of 
every  decent  person  of  any  denomination.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of 
man  to  produce  stronger  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  the  orthodox  cause» 
and  the  wickedness  of  orthodox  writers  in  thus  judging  the  hearts  of 
their  brethren. 

Now  if  the  members  of  your  denomination  were  free  from  failings, 
imperfections,  and  sins,  you  would  have  some  excuse  for  thus  passing 
upon  your  fellow  Christians  sentence  of  condemnation.  But  you  can- 
not justly  lay  claim  to  any  such  exemptions  ;  and  although  it  does  not 
become  me  to  speak  of  the  external  conduct  and  character  of  the  ortho- 
dox, I  may  quote  a  few  lines  from  an  article  in  the  last  American 
Quarterly  Review,  written  by  u  Christian  who  rejects  unitarianism, 
and  who  has  had  nmch  opportunity  for  observation.  "  Admitting  that 
there  are  pure  and  bright  examples  of  a  good  life  among  the  terrorists,  not 
however  more  or  better  than  are  found  among  their  opponents  ;   if  we 


LETTER  I.  69 

look  at  them  individually,  we  shall  see  them,  generally,  as  devoted  to 
worldly  wealth  and  enjoyments  ;  as  solicitous  for  distinction  and  in- 
fluence ;  as  easily  and  happily  puffed  up  with  pride  and  conceit ;  and 
as  mere  creatures  of  flesh,  as  those  they  pity  or  spurn,  because,  for- 
sooth, their  pretensions  to  sanctity  are  not  so  lofty,  or  their  notions  of 
Christianity  so  mysterious  as  their  own ;  nor  their  observances  and 
deportment  squared  by  the  rule  they  have  adopted.  They  are  as 
impatient  of  injuries  ;  as  vindictive  in  their  passions ;  as  unforgiving 
in  their  temper ;  as  keen,  close,  and  avaricious  in  their  dealings  ;  as 
hard  creditors ;  as  inflexible  and  unpitying  in  exacting  their  rights." 
Will  any  man  in  your  party  dare  to  affirm  that  this  is  not  the  literal 
truth  ?  When  you  or  any  one  of  your  friends  can  feel  that  you  are 
without  sin,  then  will  it  be  time  enough  to  condemn  a  large,  and  respect- 
able, and  virtuous  denomination  as  irreligious,  immoral,  and  un- 
christian. And  how  far  you  can  reconcile  such  a  practice  with  free 
inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism,  must 
be  left  to  your  own  decision.  Remember  that  unitarians  have  the 
same  right  and  as  much  reason  to  deny  the  Christian  character  to  the 
orthodox  denomination. 

3.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Unitarian  Ministers  are  not  Ministers  of  the 
Gospel.  Thirdly.  Look  at  those  passages  in  which  orthodox  bodies 
have  declared  that  unitarian  preachers  were  not  ministers  of  the  gospel. 
One  extract  will  be  sufficient  in  this  case  ;  more  especially,  since  it 
contains  the  opinion  of  a  numerous  body  of  orthodox  clergy  and  dele- 
gates. "  In  the  present  state  of  our  country,  whilst  unitarian  errors, 
in  various  forms,  are  making  their  insiduous  approaches ;  whilst  the 
advocates  of  this  heresy,  in  many  cases,  are  practising  a  system  of 
concealment,  and  insinuating  themselves  into  the  confidence  of  mul- 
titudes who  have  no  suspicion  of  their  defection  from  the  faith,  the 
Assembly  feel  it  to  be  their  duty  to  speak  without  reserve.  It  is  the 
deliberate  and  unanimous  opinion  of  this  Assembly,  that  those  who 
renounce  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  and  deny  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory  with  the 
Father,  cannot  be  recognised  as  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  that  their 
ministrations  are  wholly  invalid."  How  you  can  reconcile  such  pro- 
ceedings with  the  principles  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and 
Congregationalism,  is  more  than  I  can  comprehend.  Remember  that 
unitarians  have  the  same  right  and  equal  reason  to  deny  orthodox 
preachers  to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel. 

4.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  when  admin- 
istered by  Unitanans,  are  not  Christian  Ordinances.  Fourthly.  Look  at 
those  passages  in  which  orthodox  writers  have  denied  the  name  of 
Christian  ordinances  to  the  baptism  and  supper  when  celebrated  by 
unitarian  Christians.  One  or  two  extracts  from  your  friend  Dr.  Mil- 
ler, will  be  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose.     "  You  are  prepared,  I 


70  LETTER  I. 

hope,  to  decide,  promptly  and  without  wavering,  that  their  ordinances 
are  to  be  held  unworthy  of  regard  as  Christian  institutions.  With 
respect  to  the  validity  of  sealing  ordinances  administered  by  unitarians, 
the  hig-hest  judicatory  of  the  church  to  which  we  belong  has  given  a 
decision,  which  ought  to  be  generally  known.  In  the  year  1814  a 
question  was  laid  before  the  General  Assembly,  in  the  following  words. 
A  person  who  had  been  baptized  in  his  infancy  by  Dr.  Priestley,  ap- 
plied for  admission  to  the  Lord's  Table.  Ought  the  baptism  adminis- 
tered by  Dr.  Priestley,  then  a  unitarian,  to  be  considered  as  valid  ?  The 
Assembly  after  mature  deliberation,  decided  as  follows.  Resolved^  that 
this  question  be  answered  in  the  negative ;  and  it  was  accordingly 
determined  in  the  negative."  1  have  known  several  instances  of  late 
occurrence,  in  which  the  orthodox  have  rebaptized  unitarian  church 
members,  and  admitted  them  to  their  communion  only  as  new  converts. 
I  can  only  ask  you  to  reconcile  such  votes  and  proceedings  with  the 
principles  of  free  inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  Congregationalism. 
Remember  that  unitarians  have  the  same  right,  and  as  much  reason,  to 
deny  the  validity  and  Christian  appellation  of  the  ordinances  adminis- 
tered by  orthodox  ministers. 

5.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Unitarians  spread  their  Sentiments  hy  Con- 
cealment. Fifthly.  Look  at  those  numerous  passages,  in  which  orthodox 
writers  accuse  unitarians  of  spreading  their  peculiar  opinions  by  con- 
cealment. One  sentence  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims  "  will  be  suffi- 
cient for  my  present  purpose.  "  Unitarianism,  it  is  well  known,  was 
introduced  and  propagated  in  this  country  by  concealment."  Is  this 
true  ?  For  my  own  part,  I  am  free  to  confess,  that  I  have  never  under- 
stood the  meaning  of  this  charge.  Concealment !  What  do  you  mean 
by  the  term  ?  Do  you  mean,  that  unitarian  ministers  concealed  ortho- 
doxy from  their  hearers,  and  thus  introduced  unitarianism?  If  so, 
how  do  you  account  for  the  well  known  fact,  that  a  large  majority  of 
many  congregations  have  embraced  unitarianism,  to  whom  their  own 
ministers  never  preached  any  thing  but  rigid  orthodoxy,  and  would 
permit  none  but  orthodox  preachers  to  officiate  in  their  pulpits  ?  That 
such  has  been  the  result  in  many  societies  in  this  commonwealth,  you 
have  already  received  abundant  testimony  ;  and  that  such  is  the  con- 
dition of  many  more  parishes  over  whom  exclusive  pastors  are  still 
settled,  you  will  ere  long  have  still  more  demonstrative  evidence.  If 
then  such  be  your  meaning,  please  to  reconcile  this  notorious  truth, 
with  your  ofl  repeated  accusation.  Do  you  mean  that  unitarian  minis- 
ters concealed  unitarianism  from  their  hearers  ?  Where  then  did  they 
obtain  a  knowledge  of  it  ?  You  admit  that  they  have  received  it,  and 
still  believe  it  true  ?  From  the  Bible  ?  And  is  this  a  good  reason  why 
they  should  renounce  it?  Or  is  it  any  less  valuable  because  derived 
from  this  sacred  source  ?  Are  people  to  believe  nothing  but  what 
comes  from  their  preachers  ?      I  know  your  friend  Dr.  Miller  baa 


LETTER  I.  71 

exhorted  all  the  orthodox  to  consider  the  preaching  of  unitarians  as 
blasphemy,  and  to  avoid  their  publications  as  they"  would  a  cup  of  poi- 
son. If  then  this  be  your  meaning,  please  to  reconcile  the  well  known 
fact,  of  the  general  reception  of  unitarianism  by  the  members  of  uni- 
tarian parishes,  with  your  oft  repeated  accusation.  Do  you  mean,  that 
unitarian  preachers  concealed  the  name  of  their  sentiments,  when  de- 
livering them  to  their  hearers  ?  If  so,  wherein  lies  the  guilt  of  such  a 
course  ?  Is  truth  any  less  precious  because  stigmatized  by  an  odious 
name  ?  Is  it  a  preacher's  business  to  proclaim  the  party  names  which 
have  deluged  Christendom,  and  been  a  principal  cause  of  dividing 
Christians?  And  if  a  parish  have  embraced  true  views  of  the  gospel, 
do  you  suppose  they  will  be  so  foolish  as  to  renounce  them,  because 
they  did  not  at  first  know  the  sectarian  title  by  which  they  had  been 
christened  ?  If  a  man  finds  a  guinea,  and  knows  it  to  be  pure  gold, 
but  knows  not  its  name,  will  he  cast  it  from  him  as  worthless,  when  in* 
formed  of  the  appellation  by  which  it  is  called  ?  If  this  be  your  meaning, 
please  to  inform  us,  if  this  is  the  estimate  you  put  upon  the  under- 
standings of  your  own  hearers,  and  by  them  proceed  to  form  your 
opinion  of  unitarian  believers  ?  Do  you  mean  that  unitarian  ministers 
have  sincerely  endeavoured,  according  to  the  best  of  their  judgment,  to 
promote  the  religious  knowledge  and  spiritual  welfare  of  their  hearers  ? 
And  is  not  this  their  duty  ?  Is  it  not  commanded  by  Jesus  and  his 
Apostles  ?  Have  you  any  authority  to  dictate  to  other  peachers  how 
they  must  perform  their  ministerial  services  ? 

Now,  Sir,  I  wish  to  know  why  this  charge  of  concealment  against 
unitarian  ministers  has  been  so  often  reiterated  by  orthodox  writers. 
Has  it  not  been  done  to  frighten  the  more  ignorant  members  of  our  so- 
cieties, so  that  you  could  gain  a  few  proselytes  ?  Remember,  Sir,  that 
the  orthodox  are  peculiarly  obnoxious  to  this  charge  of  concealment. 
One  of  your  pupils  made  this  confession  to  me  afier  he  had  been  in 
your  seminary  two  years.  "  If  the  orthodox  community  only  knew 
how  very  liberal  many  of  us  are  in  certain  articles  of  tlieology,  they 
would  not  hear  us  preach."  How  long  is  it,  since  a  public  charge 
was  given  to  orthodox  ministers,  not  to  preach  the  doctrine  of  election 
in  times  of  religious  excitement  ?  How  long  since  your  colleague  ad- 
vised your  pupils  not  to  bring  forward  the  doctrine  of  election  too  of- 
ten, on  account  of  the  prejudices  existing  against  it  in  the  community  ? 
How  long  since  one  of  your  students  who  had  been  lately  ordained, 
observed  that  the  orthodox  did  not  preach  sufficient  terror  ?  And  when 
asked  why  he  did  not  preach  more,  answered  —  '  Because  my  people 
will  not  bear  it.'  I  have  more  facts  on  this  subject  than  you  may  im- 
agine. You  must  remember  thai  there  are  men  now  in  the  unitarian 
denomination  who  were  once  initiated  into  all  the  secrets  of  the  ortho- 
dox party  ;  and  unless  you  choose  to  conduct  your  controversies  in  a 
more  Chri«tan  and  honorable  manner,  a  disclosure  may  hereafter  be 


72  LETTER  I. 

made.  The  literal  fact  is  this  ;  many  of  your  preachers  are  much  more 
liberal  than  their  hearers  imag-ine,  while  many  others  are  much  more  rig- 
id in  their  sentiments,  and  they  feel  oblifred  to  trim  their  course  of  minis- 
terial duty,  in  order  to  keep  their  societies  united.  But,  even  if  this  be 
not  blamable  (though  I  certainly  wish  to  pursue  no  such  practice  my- 
self) I  do  find  fault,  when  you  proceed  to  condemn  day  after  day  your 
unitarian  brethren  for  doing  precisely  the  same  thing  which  is  practised 
to  a  much  greater  extent  in  your  own  denomination.  And  how  you 
can  reconcile  such  a  custom  of  denunciation,  with  free  inquiry,  religious 
liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism,  I  will  not  undertake  to 
determine.  Remember  that  unitarians  have  the  same  right,  and  as  much 
reason,  to  accuse  the  orthodox  of  spreading  their  sentiments  by  con- 
cealment. 

6.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Unitarians  are  Universalists.  Sixthly.  Look 
at  those  passages,  in  which  orthodox  writers  accuse  unitarians  of  being 
universalists.  One  clause  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims  "  will  answer 
my  present  purpose.  "  Leading  unitarians  in  the  United  States,  with 
possibly  a  few  exceptions,  do  believe  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation, 
and  are  in  every  thing  but  the  name  universalists.^^  Now  why  have 
you  so  often  brought  this  charge  against  unitarians  ?  I  firmly  believe 
it  has  been  done  to  injure  their  influence  and  disaffect  their  hearers. 
Your  writers  well  know,  that  many  among  the  universalists  believe  in 
no  future  punishment.  They  also  know  that  this  doctrine  is  peculiarly 
offensive  to  a  considerable  portion  of  the  community.  They  are  there- 
fore willing  to  confound  the  two  classes  together,  and  to  permit  the  un- 
learned to  believe,  that  unitarians  have  embraced  this  obnoxious  senti- 
ment.    I  do  not  make  this  statement  without  satisfactory  evidence. 

And  does  your  charge  contain  the  truth  ?  Is  it  a  fact,  that  almost 
all  the  leading  unitarians  in  our  country  believe  in  universal  salvation  ? 
I  think  not ;  although  I  cannot  imitate  you,  by  saying  that  I  am  well 
acquainted  with  all  against  whom  this  charge  is  specially  directed. 
But  I  will  honestly  and  frankly  state  what  I  believe  to  be  the  exact 
truth  on  this  question.  On  tiie  subject  of  punishment,  1  think  the  uni- 
tarians may  be  divided  into  four  distinct  classes.  They  all  believe  that 
God  will  render  unto  every  man  according  to  his  deeds,  and  that  all 
who  die  impenitent  and  unreformed  must  suffer  the  natural  consequen- 
ces of  their  wicked  characters.  The  first  class  then  believe  in  tiie  an- 
nihilation of  the  wicked,  after  a  limited  period  of  suflfering.  I  say  classj 
although  I  am  unable  to  name  but  one  individual  of  this  belief  in  the 
whole  denomination.  A  second  class  believe  that  those  who  die  unre- 
generated,  will  eventually  become  holy,  and  consequently  be  saved 
from  the  torment  of  their  sinfulness.  I  again  say  c.lassy  although  I  am 
unable  to  name  but  few  individuals  of  this  belief  in  the  denomination. 
A  third  class  cannot  find  suflacient  evidence  in  the  Bible  to  warrant  a 
belief  in  endless  torments,  neither  can  they  find  sufficient  evidence  to 


LETTER  I.  73 

warrant  a  helirf'm  universal  restoration.  They  therefore  leave  the  sub- 
ject indefinite,  as  they  believe  the  Scriptures  liave  leftit.  How  many 
or  what  proportion  of  the  whole  are  embraced  in  this  class,  I  have  no 
means  of  determining.  For  on  tliis  as  on  all  other  subjects,  every  man 
in  the  denomination  thinks  for  himself,  and  there  is  no  human  standard 
erected  for  making  hypocrites.  The  last  class  believe  in  the  everlast- 
ing punishment  of  the  wicked  ;  and  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  it  is 
very  respectable  both  for  numbers  and  character.  If  my  statement  is 
correct,  you  perceive  how  very  unfounded  is  your  oft  repeated  accusa- 
tion. You  see  that  the  number  who  have  a  firm  helitf  in  universal  sal- 
vation is  comparatively  small.  If  you  mean  to  include  all  who  fondly 
hope  and  wish,  that  it  may  be  consistent  with  the  justice  and  mercy  of 
the  common  Father,  to  enable  his  children  to  love  and  serve  him,  so  as 
to  answer  the  design  of  their  creation,  I  desire  for  the  credit  of  human- 
ity that  the  whole  tlenominationmay  be  included. 

Now  I  could  bring  the  charge  of  universalism  with  equal  justice 
against  your  denomination.  For  I  do  know,  that  some  members  of  or- 
thodox churches  privately  entertain  the  belief  of  universal  restoration. 
I  do  also  believe,  that  orthodox  preachers  have  done  more,  than  all  oth- 
er causes  combined,  to  make  universalists.  And  I  likewise  undestand, 
that  the  whole  orthodox  party  in  Germany,  whom  you  are  ever  willing 
to  praise,  have  embraced  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation.  I  will 
give  you  a  few  sentences  from  the  late  publication  of  the  orthodox  Mr. 
Dwight,  whose  authority  none  of  you  will  pretend  to  dispute.  Here 
you  have  his  own  words.  "  The  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  future  pun- 
ishment is  almost  universally  rejected.  I  have  Been  but  one  person  in 
Germany  who  believed  it ;  and  but  one  other  whose  mmd  was  wavering 
on  this  subject."  Remember,  Sir,  that  these  are  the  orthodox  Chris- 
tians whose  praises  some  of  your  writers  have  sounded  so  long  and  so 
loudly.  And  whatefFect  has  this  rejection  produced  on  their  Christian 
character  "?  Let  the  same  orthodox  waiter  answer  this  question.  Here 
you  have  his  words.  "  I  have  never  seen  any  Christians,  who  seemed  to 
rae  to  have  a  deeper  sense  of  the  odiousness  of  sin  in  the  sight  of  God, 
or  whose  hearts  beat  with  a  more  ardent  gratitude  for  our  Saviour,  for 
the  great  redemption  he  has  made  for  fallen  man.  I  knoio  of  no  examples 
of  huniiliiy  greater  than  those  exhibited  by  some  of  these  gentlemen,  or 
more  elevated  views  of  the  character  of  God  than  you  discover  in  their 
conversation.  So  far  as  an  opinion  can  be  formed  of  them  from  their 
reputation  and  their  conversation,  we  must  look  in  vain  for  hrighier  ex- 
amples of  piety  than  they  exhibit.  They  certainly  manifest  a  greater  spirit 
of  love  for  those  who  differ  from  them,  than  is  found  in  most  of  owr  sects  ; 
and  they  feel  vei-y  unwilling  to  shut  the  gates  of  heaven  against  all  those 
tvho  do  not  believe  evtry  ortide  of  their  cre<d.  In  this  charity  and  love, 
the  Christians  of  most  protestant  countries  would  do  well  to  imitate  them" 
10 


74  LETTER  I. 

A  very  important  admission,  and  no  very  blind  hint  to  his  orthodox 
friends  in  this  land  of  hoasted  frtuMJom. 

For  my  own  part,  I  know  not  why  the  unitarians  of  America  may 
not  investigate  the  subject  of  future  punishment  as  well  as  the  orthodox 
of  Germany.  I  know  not  how  they  are  to  reject  evidence  on  tiiis  ques- 
tion, any  more  than  on  otlier  theological  inquiries.  I  know  not  how 
any  man  can  believe  a  proposition  without  sitisfactory  proof,  or  c(  n- 
trary  to  convincing  evidence.  If  a  man  cannot  find  sufficient  testimony 
in  the  Scriptures  to  enable  him  to  believe  in  tlie  endless  torments  of 
the  wicked,  I  knoAv  not  why  he  should  be  held  up  to  public  reprobation 
for  his  honest  convictions.  If  a  belief  in  either  doctrine  indicates  a 
corrupt  heart,  I  see  not  but  it  must  be  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery. 
And  I  think  the  unitarians  have  more  reason  to  accuse  you  of  being 
actuated  by  corrupt  motives  in  adheiing  to  this  belief,  than  you  have 
to  charge  them  with  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief,  because  they  hope  and 
pray  and  labor  for  the  salvation  of  all  mankind,  and  do  not  find  any 
evidence  of  an  eternal  decree  to  consign  the  larger  poriion  of  the 
human  family  to  unutterable  and  never-ending  woe.  And  remem- 
ber, Sir,  that  unitarians  have  the  same  right,  and  as  much  reason,  to 
bring  this  charge  against  the  orthodox  denomination.  I  will  merely 
add,  that  it  is  my  hearty  prayer,  that  you  and  your  aggrieved  friends 
may  meekly  improve  the  kind  hint  of  Mr.  Dwight,  and  imijLate  the 
charity  and  love,  of  the  orthodox  univcrsalists  of  Germany. 

7.  The  Orthodox  asseH  that  Unitarians  are  Heretics.  Seventhly.  Look 
at  those  passages,  in  which  ortliodox  writers  have  denounced  unita- 
rians as  heretics,  and  promoters  of  damnable  heresies.  Charges  of 
this  kind  are  so  common,  that  it  seems  scarcely  necessary  to  mako  even 
a  quotation.  I  will  however  take  a  sentence  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Pilgrims."  "  And  here  I  would  say,  that  as  Christ  crucified,  or  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  is  the  foundation  of  all  hope  for  sinners,  so  those 
who  deny  this  doctrine^  the  atonement,  differing  or  agreeing  in  whatever 
else  they  may,  are  the  persons  referred  to  by  the  apostle,  when  he 
speaks  of  damnable  heresies."  Now  you  well  know  that  unitarians 
do  not  believe  in  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  although 
they  uniformly  hold  to  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  atonement  But 
for  you  to  accuse  them  of  propagating  damnable  heresies,  because  they 
prefer  the  words  and  statements  of  inspired  apostles  and  a  divine 
Saviour  to  those  of  John  Calvin,  seems  not  a  little  domineering.  And 
every  one  of  you,  who  has  studied  theology  to  any  purpose,  must  know 
that  unitarians  are  no  more  scripturally  entitled  to  the  name  of  heretics 
than  the  orthodox  are.  I  shall  not  therefore  attempt  to  reason  on  this 
question,  but  simply  quote  one  passage  from  the  orthodox  Dr.  Campbell. 
"  I  shall  conclude,  with  adding  to  the  observations  on  the  words  schism 
and  heresy,  that  how  much  soever  of  a  schismatical  or  heretical  spirit,  in 
the  apostolic  sense  of  the  terms,  may  have  contributed  to  tlie  formation 


LETTER  I.  75 

of  the  different  sects  into  which  the  Christian  world  is  at  present 
divided ;  no  person  who,  in  the  spirit  of  candor  and  charity,  adheres  to 
that  ivhich,  to  the  best  of  his  judgment,  is  right,  though  in  this  opinion 
he  should  he  mistaken,  is,  in  the  Scriptural  sense,  either  schismatic  or 
heretic;  and  that  he,  on  the  contrary,  whatever  sect  he  belong 

TO,  IS  MORE  entitled  TO  THESE  ODIOUS  APPELLATIONS,  WHO  IS  MOST 
APT  TO  THROW  THE  IMPUTATION  UPON  OTHERS." 

8.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Unitarians  are  Enemies  to  Jesus  Christ. 
Eighthly.  Look  at  those  passages,  in  which  orthodox  writers  charge 
unitarians  with  being  enemies  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  all  that  is  valuable 
in  religion.  One  quotation  from  the  Farewell  Discourse  of  the  late 
Dr.  Mason  will  be  sufficient.  "  Above  all  things  it  is  devoutly 
to  be  hoped,  that  you  will  never  invite  to  the  care  of  your  souls,  a 
man  who  cares  nothing  about  them.  I  mean,  more  particularly, 
for  I  would  not  be  misunderstood,  a  man  who  belongs  to  that  rank  of 
traitors  who  miscall  themselves  rational  Christians.  Against  these  men 
I  have  ever  warned  you,  as  the  enemies  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  all  that  is  valuable  in  his  religion  and  peculiar  in  his  salvationJ'^ 
To  reason  on  this  subject  would  be  idle.  Remember  that  unitarians 
have  the  same  right  and  equal  reason  to  accuse  the  orthodox  deno- 
mination of  being  enemies  to  Jesus  and  his  religion. 

9.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Unitarians  are  Deists  in  Disguise.  JVintJdy 
Look  at  those  passages,  in  which  orthodox  writers  have  accused  unita- 
rians of  being  deists  in  disguise.  My  first  extract  shall  be 
from  Dr.  Miller.  "  You  are  prepared,  I  hope,  to  decide,  promptly 
and  without  wavering,  that  they,  unitarians,  are  by  no  means  to  be 
considered  as  Christians,  in  any  Scriptural  sense  of  the  word  ;  that 
their  preaching  is  to  be  avoided  as  blasphemy  ;  their  publications  to  be 
abhorred  as  pestiferous ;  their  ordinances  to  be  held  unworthy  of 
regard  as  Christian  institutions  ;  and  their  persons  to  he  in  all  respects 
treated  as  decent  and  sober  deists  in  disguise."  The  Reverend  Doctor 
must  have  a  very  contemptuous  opinion  of  the  orthodox  denomination, 
and  very  little  confidence  in  orthodox  sentiments,  if  he  is  obliged  to 
adopt  such  strong  language  to  frighten  his  readers  from  hearing 
unitarian  preaching,  or  reading  unitarian  books,  or  attending  on  unita- 
rian ordinances. 

My  next  extract  shall  be  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,"  said  to  have 
been  written  by  yourself  "  The  question  is  here  soon  to  be,  Whether 
the  Bible  is  indeed  an  inspired  book,  and  its  decisions  final  and  authori- 
tative in  the  Christian  church.  The  time  has  been,  when  a  suggestion 
of  this  nature  would  have  brought  down  a  storm  of  obloquy  upon  the 
man,  who  dared  to  venture  on  making  it.  The  time  now  is,  when  some 
of  the  younger,  bolder,  more  thorough-going,  more  open-hearted  young 
men,  and  a  few  of  the  older  ones,  do  not  hesitate,  when  among  the 
iif iTiATED,  to  answer  the  question  above  in  the  negative ;  nor  do  some 


76  LETTER  I. 

of  them  hesitate  even  to  preach  what  implies  a  negative ;  although 
they  are  somewhat  guarded  in  their  assertions,  on  account  of  the  yet 
remaining  prejudices,  as  they  term  them,  of  their  hearers,  or  at  least  a 
portion  of  their  hearers.  These  open-hearted  men,  whose  sincerity 
we  do  not  feel  at  all  disposed  to  question,  and  whom  we,  on  every 
account,  respect  far  more  than  we  can  those  who  are  not  bold  and 
honest  enough  to  make  an  open  profession  of  their  belief,  only  need 
a  little  more  of  a  common  centre  around  which  they  may  rally,  some 
able,  and  learned,  and  fearless  defender  of  their  cause,  to  come  out 
witli  an  entirely  open  face,  and  avow  substantially  the  naturalism  which 
Dr.  Wegscheider  now  teaches  at  Halle-Wittenberg."  Now  this  pas- 
sage contains  several  most  weighty  charges  against  unitarians.  First, 
some  young  and  a  few  old  unitarians  declare  privately,  that  the  Bible 
is  not  an  inspired  book,  and  that  its  decisions  are  not  final  and  authori- 
tative in  the  Christian  church.  Secondly,  that  these  men  only  need 
some  able  leaders,  and  they  will  openly  declare  themselves  on  deistical 
ground.  Thirdly,  that  another  class  are  not  deserving  your  respect, 
because  they  are  not  bold  and  honest  enough  to  make  an  open  profes- 
sion of  their  belief.  And  from  these  premises,  this  conclusion  naturally 
follows,  that  most  of  the  unitarians  are  hypocrites  ;  for  they  are  now 
really  deists,  but  disguise  their  belief,  and  call  themselves  Christians. 
Of  all  the  charges  against  unitarians,  I  know  of  none  n)ore  slanderous 
than  this.  After  making  this  statement,  I  should  not  suppose  you 
would  ever  complain  of  the  severity  of  unitarian  denunciations.  For 
you  here  aim  a  death-blow  at  their  very  sincerity  and  honesty;  you 
would  hold  them  up  before  the  world  as  hypocrites.  I  can  never 
condescend  to  reason  with  a  man  who  denies  the  very  integrity  of  my 
heart  on  the  question  in  debate.  I  will  only  say,  that  a  more  false  and 
injurious  statement  was  never  published. 

10.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Unitarians  are  Infidels.  Tenthly.  Look 
at  those  passages,  in  which  orthodox  writers  have  accused  unitarians  of 
being  infidels.  A  few  sentences  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims  "  will 
answer  my  purpose.  '*  Who  can  hesitate  where  to  class  those  lead- 
ing, standard  unitarians,  whose  writings  have  been  quoted!  Is  it  an 
abuse  of  language  to  call  such  witers  infidels  ?  The  infidelity  of  lead- 
ing unitarians  in  this  region  is  not,  with  them,  mere  philosophical 
speculation.  It  has  been  poured  out  upon  this  community,  in  conver- 
sation, in  the  lecture-room,  from  the  pulpit,  and  the  press,  till  the  whole 
moral  atmosphere  is  in  a  degree  infected.  It  has  rolled  over  this  por- 
tion of  our  fair  land  like  a  destroying  deluge,  and  unless  the  Lord  lift 
up  a  standard  against  it,  where  shall  its  proud  waves  be  stayed  7  It 
certainly  is  high  time  that  things  were  called  by  their  right  names; 
and  that  the  public  were  loudly  and  solemnly  warned  of  the  dangers 
that  surround  them."  I  have  no  wish  to  reason  on  this  question.  I 
merely  desire  to  ask  &  few  questions.  Does  an  individual  leader  in  your 


LETTER  I.  77 

party  lelieve  the  truth  of  these  charges  ?  Do  you  believe,  that  unitari- 
ans have  given  up  their  faith  in  the  divine  and  miraculous  origin  of  the 
Christian  religion  ?  No.  Why  then  do  you  wish  to  make  the  ignor- 
ant believe  such  a  falsehood  ?  To  injure  the  character  and  usefulness 
of  unitarians.  And,  Sir,  where  has  infidelity  prevailed  to  the  greatest 
extent?  In  places  were  unitarianism  or  Calvinism  has  most  prevailed  ? 
In  the  regions  of  Calvinism.  And  who  have  written  the  most  unan- 
swerable defences  of  revelation  ?  Unitarians.  And  who  is  to  check 
the  progress  of  infidelity  in  our  land?  The  unitarian.  He  can  show 
that  the  Gospel  does  not  teach  Calvinism.  And  how  can  you  reconcile 
such  charges,  to  say  nothing  of  truth,  with  the  principles  of  free 
inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  Congregationalism  ?  Remember  that 
unitarians  have  the  same  right  and  as  much  reason  to  accuse  the 
orthodox  of  infidelity. 

11.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Unitarians  are  Emissnries  of  Satan,  Dev- 
ils, and  worse  than  the  Devil.  Eleventhly.  Look  at  those  passages,  in 
which  orthodox  writers  have  accused  unitarians  of  being  emissaries  of 
Satan,  devils,  and  worse  than  the  Devil.  My  first  extract  shall  be  from 
a  Sermon  by  the  President  of  Nashville  College.  These  are  his  words. 
"  Behold  the  progress  of  heresy  and  infidelity  under  the  disguise  of 
rational  Christianity.  See  the  artifice  of  the  great  destroyer  in 
these  latter  days.  He  has  commissioned  his  emissaries  to  assume  the 
garb  and  the  functions  of  the  minister  of  the  gospel,  that  they  may  more 
effectually  sap  the  foundation  of  the  whole  Christian  edifice.  He  has 
enlisted  talents,  and  learning,  and  indefatigable  enterprise  in  this 
work  of  desolation.  Modem  uniinriaiiism,  which  is  every  where  insin- 
uating itself  into  the  hearts  of  men,  naturally  predisposed  to  its  recep- 
tion, because  it  is  exactly  suited  to  the  natural  character  of  man,  is 
more  to  he  dreaded  than  any  species  of  infidelity  ever  yet  avowed.'''*  What, 
more  than  Atheism  ?  Let  that  pass.  Here  you  perceive  that  unita- 
rian ministers  are  called  emissaries  of  Satan  by  a  former  Professor  at 
Princeton.  What  would  you  say,  if  I  should  inform  you  that  this  said 
President  had  already  become  a  liberal  Christian  himself? 

My  next  quotation  shall  be  from  the  Letters  of  Canonicus,  as  giving 
a  fair  specimen  of  the  views  of  yorr  Seminary.  He  first  attempts  to 
prove  that  unitarians  do  not  believe  in  the  personal  existence  of  an 
almost  omnipotent  Devil,  and  then  draws  the  following  inference. 
"  Satan  has  few  more  successful  servants  than  those  professed  teachers 
of  Christianity,  who  either  openly  deny  his  existence,  or  by  never 
asserting  it,  let  it  slip  out  of  the  minds  of  their  hearers.  The  amiable 
and  estimable  qualities,  the  varied  learning  and  beneficent  dispositions 
of  such  teachers,  may  make  them  revered  and  loved  and  honored  in  any 
community.  It  is,  indeed,  a  most  ungrateful  task  to  bring  forward, 
either  directly  or  by  implication,  such  a  charge  against  a  highly  re- 
spectable portion  of  the  community."  The  plain  meaning  of  the  whole 


t«  LETTER  I. 

then  is  this.  Unitarians  are  the  most  successful  servants  of  Satan. 
Why?  Because  some  of  them,  either  do  not  believe  in  the  personal 
existence  of  an  almost  omnipotent  Devil,  or  do  not  weekly  hold  him  up 
before  their  hearers.  But  th^re  are  also  other  points  in  tliese  assertions,' 
which  I  wish  you  to  explain.  Ifunitariansare  the  most  successful  servants 
of  Satan,  I  cannot  understand  how  they  are  so  worthy  to  be  revered  and 
loved  and  honored  in  any  community,  especially  in  an  orthodox  com- 
munity. For  one  of  your  preachers  lately  informed  his  hearers,  that 
our  Saviour's  command  to  love  our  enemies  did  not  extend  to  the 
Devil;  and  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should  extend  to  his  most  surcessful 
servants.  And  if  unitarians  are  the  most  successful  servants  of  Satan, 
I  cannot  conceive  how  they  can  constitute  a  most  respe<  table  portion  of 
the  community.  For  I  have  always  been  accustomed  to  consider  the 
most  successful  servants  of  Christ  the  most  respectable  portion  of 
society  ;  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  our  Saviour  so  regarded  them.  But  if 
all  this  is  the  necessary  inference  from  orthodox  reasoning,  do  pray 
observe  a  rigid  consistency. 

My  last  passage  shall  be  from  Dr.  Mason's  Farewell  Discourse  in 
New  York.  "I  know  that  this  congregation  is  considered  by  them 
[unitarians],  as  the  very  focus  of  what  they  term  bigotry  ;  and  I  do 
rejoice  that  thus  far  I  and  you  have  been  counted  worthy  to  suffer 
shame  for  his  name.  Long  may  it  continue  so !  Long  may  it  be 
thought  a  hopeless  case  to  ntlempl  to  bring  you  over  to  ilie  fellowship  of 
DEVILS.  Though  I  would  not  slander  the  Devil  ;  he  promotes  his  work 
as  the  destroyer^  not  by  tempting  men  to  his  beliefs  but  by  persuading  them 
to  embrace  tchat  he  does  not  believe  —  what  is  loo  coarse  and  abominable 
for  hell  iisdf^  This  is  plain  language.  Unitarianism  is  too  coarse  and 
abominable  for  hell  itself  Unitariiins  are  devils  ;  and  worse  than  the 
Devil  himself;  for  it  would  be  slandering  the  Devil  to  charge  him  with 
doing  what  is  daily  done  by  unitarians.  Very  well.  I  shall  not  argue 
the  question,  whether  unitarians  are  possessed  by  the  devil  or  not. 
But  I  must  have  some  evidence,  besides  mere  assertion,  before  I  can 
yield  the  point  in  dispute.  I  would  merely  add,  Remember  that  unita- 
rians have  the  same  right  and  equal  reason  to  bring  these  charges 
against  the  orthodox  denomination. 

12.  The  Orthodox  assert  that  Unitarians  cannot  be  saved,  but  must  go 
to  Hell.  Twelflhly.  Look  at  those  numerous  passaged,  in  which  ortho- 
dox ministers  have  asserted  that  unitarians  cannot  be  saved,  but  must 
be  eternally  damned.  Indeed  this  practice  has  become  so  common  as 
to  shock  all  respectable  people  of  other  denominations.  In  proof  of  this 
assertion,  I  will  quote  merely  one  passage  from  the  last  American  Quar- 
terly Keview.  These  are  the  words.  "  We  do  not  belong  to  the  sect  of 
unitarians,  and  feel  no  concern  for  the  extension  of  their  principles,  l>ut 
we  have  been  shocked  by  the  open  and  coarse  manner  in  which  their 
claims  to  Christianity  have  been  denied  ;  and  the  fury  by  which  the 


LETTER  I.  ^g 

members  of  that  church,  many  of  whom  we  know  to  be  pious,  learned, 
and  excellent  men,  have  been  in  a  summary  icay.  doom,ed  to  everlasting 
and  hopelss  misery,  even  from  the  altars  of  the  God  (f  mercy."  Having 
given  you  the  passage  from  this  al)le  and  catholic  Journal,  I  will  pro- 
ceed with  my  extracts  from  oithodox  ministers.  The  first  shall  be  trom 
Dr.  Beecher's  {Sermon  at  Portland.  "  Reflect,  I  beseech  you,  on  the 
argument;  and  remember,  that  in  proportion  to  the  certainty  of  its 
result,  is  the  certainty  of  your  destruction  — your  everlasting  destruction, 
if  you  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  and  of  justification  hy  faith. 
Let  parents  think  of  this,  who  put  in  jeopardy,  not  their  oivn  souls  only, 
but  the  soids  of  their  confiding'  oflTspring.  Let  professed  ministers  of 
Christ,  who  reject  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  neglect  to  preach,  or 
preach  against,  the  doctrines  of  atonement  and  justification  by  faith  ;  — 
let  such  ministers  reflect,  and  tremble  at  the  possibility,  the  probability, 
the  CKRTAiN  I  Y,  that  they  loill  destroy  both  their  oum  souls  and  the  soids 
of  them  that  hear  them.'*''  This  is  sufficiently  explicit.  Unitarians  who 
reject  Dr.  Beecher's  views  of  the  atonement  and  justification  by  faith, 
will  certainly  be  damned. 

.My  next  passage  shall  be  from  an  extemporaneous  discourse,  deliv- 
ered by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Green  of  Boston,  at  an  evening  lecture  in  Salem, 
and  recorded  at  the  time  by  one  of  the  most  distinguished  gentlemen 
of  that  place.  These  are  the  very  sentiments  advanced.  "  Nine 
churches  (we  do  not  mention  it  with  a  spirit  of  boasting)  have  been 
recently  established  in  the  vicinity  of  Boston,  upon  ground  where 
another  gospel  has  been  preached,  we  do  verily  believe  it  another 

gospel,    WHICH  NEVER    BROUGHT    A    SOUL     TO    JeSUS    ChRIST    AND     TO 

HEAVEN,  AND  NEVER  WILL,  %  meuwhom  u'c  Can  love  and  do  love,  whom 
we  can  pray  for  and  do  pray  for,  whom  we  can  weep  over  and  do  weep 
over"  Now  several  circumstances  render  these  assertions  peculiarly 
unchristian  and  injurious.  First,  they  were  uttered  with  great  solemni- 
ty to  an  audience  composed  principally  of  females  ;  and  not  of  that  class 
of  females  who  would  be  most  likely  to  suspect  the  infallibility  of  their 
origin.  Secondly,  their  spiritual  pride  and  self-righteousness  would  be 
very  liable  to  be  increased,  by  such  a  call  upon  them  to  pray  and  weep 
over  the  fatal  errors  of  Christians  as  good  or  better  than  themselves. 
Thirdly,  the  remarks  allude  particularly  to  such  men  as  Dr.  Tucker- 
man,  the  late  Dr.  Foster,  Dr.  Ripley,  and  other  distinguished  worthies. 
And,  finally,  neither  the  preacher  nor  his  hearers  had  arrived  at  such 
Christian  perfection,  as  to  warrant  them  in  neglecting  their  own  fail- 
ings, and  in  spending  their  time  in  weeping  and  praying  for  their 
neighbours.     Did  they  i^member  the  prayer  of  the  Pharisee  ? 

My  third  quotation  shalVbe  from  your  Letter  on  Religious  Liberty. 
These  are  your  words.  "Ve  do  from  the  heart  believe,  that  the  eternal 
salvation  of  our  fellow-beings  is  connected  with  a  hearty  assert  to  the  fun- 
damental principles  which  we  avow."  Now  these  fundamental  principles 


80  LETTER  I. 

which  you  avow  are  contained  in  your  human  creed.  You  know  that 
no  unitarian  can  give  his  hearty  assent  to  those  principles.  You  do 
therefore  helieve,  that  their  eternal  salvation  is  forfeited.  In  other 
words, you  heartily  believe  unitarians  must  be  eternally  damned  because 
they  will  not  profess  their  hearty  belief  in  the  articles  of  your  human 
creed.     Is  not  this  the  true  meaning  of  your  declaration  ? 

My  last  extracts  hall  be  from  the  Farewell  Discourse  of  Dr.  Mason.  In 
order  to  make  the  whole  parajiraph  intelligible,  I  must  take  the  senten- 
ces already  quoted  in  the  connexion.  "  Long  may  it  be  thought  a 
hopeless  case  to  attempt  to  bring  you  over  to  the  fellowship  of  devils. 
Though  I  would  not  slander  the  Devil ;  he  promotes  his  work  as  the 
destroyer,  not  by  tempting  men  to  his  belief,  but  by  persuading  them  to 
embrace  what  be  does  not  believe  —  tchal  is  too  coarse  and  abominable  for 
hell  itself;  and  what  the  philosophical  christians  shall  find  to 

BE    so    WHEN    THEY    GET    TO    THEIR    OWN    PLACE.        The    prctCnCeS    of 

these  men  to  kindness,  and  candor,  and  love,  are  all  hollow.  They 
mean  to  make  proselytes  of  you,  and  two-fold  more  the  children  of  hell 
than  themselves.  O  keep  at  a  distance  from  them.  Furthest  from  them, 
and  their  charity  is  best.  Come  nut  near  their  ice^  never  to  be  melted 

BUT  IN  THAT  FIRE  WHICH  SHALL  NOT  BE  qUENCHED  !  "    Tllis  Rcvereud 

Doctor  consigns  us  to  endless  torments  with  the  most  perfect  coolness. 
I  am  sure  no  one  can  envy  such  a  man  his  disposition  or  character. 

Now,  Sir,  I  wish  to  know  what  you  mean  by  such  declarations.  Do 
you  really  believe  that  unitarians  are  to  be  consigned  to  endless  misery  ? 
Do  you  heartily  believe  that  such  men  as  Buckminster,  and  Thacher, 
and  Prentiss,  and  Abbot,  and  a  host  of  similar  characters  are  now  suf- 
fering excruciating  torments  in  hell;  and  that  they  are  there  to  suffer 
to  all  eternity  !  I  demand  an  explicit  and  public  answer  to  this  question. 
And  what  will  it  be.'  Will  you  dnre  openly  to  avow  such  a  belief.'  I 
think  not.  For  in  the  first  place,  you  must  know,  that  such  an  avowal 
would  strike  a  death  blow  at  Christi-'nity  ;  because  the  Saviour  prom- 
ised heavenly  felicity  to  those  who  sincerely  obeyed  his  commands  ; 
and  if  these  men  did  not  render  holy  obedience,  will  you  pretend  that 
any  of  your  denomination  ever  have  ?  In  the  second  place,  you  must 
know,  that  such  an  avowal  would  strike  a  fatal  blow  at  the  pillars  of 
Protestantism  ;  because  these  declare  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  suffi- 
cient and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  that  every  person  may 
study  and  understand  them  for  hiujself;  and  if  these  men  did  not  make 
the  Bible  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  will  you  pretend  that  any 
of  your  denomination  ever  have?  In  the  third  place,  you  must  know 
that  such  an  avowal  would  arouse  the  indignation  ofthe  majority  of  the 
orthodox  denomination  ;  because  they  firmly  believe  that  these  and 
.similar  unitarians  were  good  Christians,  and  that  all  good  Christians  of 
every  sect  will  be  saved.  And  in  the  fourth  place,  you  must  know,  that 
audi  an  avowal  would  awaken  the  scorn  and  contempt  of  all  Uberal- 


LETTER  I.  81 

'minded  men  everywhere  ;  because  if  you  pretend  to  believe  that  such 
men  are  to  be  eternally  damned  for  not  believing  every  article  of  your 
creed,  you  will  manifest  almost  unparalleled^weakness  and  bigotry. 
And  if  you  dare  not  openly  avov/  your  belief  in  the  damnation  of  these 
men,  why  do  you  make  such  declarations  concerning  unitarians  ?  Do 
you  make  them  to  frighten  the  young,  and  weak,  and  ignorant,  so  that 
they  may  not  become  acquainted  with  unitarian  sentiments  ?  If  so,  how 
do  you  reconcile  such  a  measure  with  the  principles  of  free  inquiry, 
religious  liberty,  and  Congregationalism  ?  Remember  that  unitarians 
have  the  same  reason,  and  as  much  right,  to  sentence  the  whole  ortho- 
dox denomination  to  endless  torments. 

I  have  no  room  for  more  quotations.  What  then  must  be  our  conclu- 
sions ?  Do  not  the  extracts  I  have  made  from  orthodox  writers  fully 
prove,  that  you  have  denied  unitarians  almost  every  Christian  right, 
and  called  them  by  almost  every  unchristian  name  ?  And  do  they  not 
also  fully  prove  that  your  denunciations  are  subversive  of  free  inquiry, 
religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  ?  I  must  con- 
clude that  both  propositions  are  perfectly  demonstrated. 

VI.  Miscellaneous  Facts. 

In  the  sixth  place,  I  invite  your  attention  to  some  miscellaneous  facts, 
which  could  not  well  be  introduced  into  the  preceding  divisions.  I 
think  the  statements  which  I  shall  make  under  this  head  will  prove  the 
two  following  propositions.  First,  that  many  of  the  measures  of  the 
leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  are  oppressive  and  unchristian.  And, 
secondly,  that  these  measures  are  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious 
liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism.  My  limits  will  permit 
me  to  notice  but  six  different  classes  of  facts  under  this  general  division, 
although  I  intended  to  notice  some  twenty  or  thirty. 

1.  Education  Society.  First.  Look  at  some  of  the  measures  of  the 
American  Education  Society.  Three  circumstances  strike  me  as  pe- 
culiarly oppressive.  One  is  this.  The  Society  is  truly  exclusive  in  its 
reception  of  beneficiaries.  Although  a  considerable  amount  of  your 
funds  has  been  obtained  from  unitarians,  with  the  express  understanding 
that  indigent  students  of  their  own  sentiments  should  be  assisted,  yet 
your  board  of  directors  will  not  grant  assistance  to  a  person  of  known 
unitarian  belief.  You  indeed  proclaim  to  the  world,  that  young  men 
of  hopeful  piety,  from  all  denominations,  may  be  aided  in  preparing  for 
the  gospel  ministry ;  and  that  you  require  no  confession  of  faith  from 
any  beneficiary.  This  declaration  is  true  in  one  sense,  and  in  another 
is  false.  Your  conscience  is  saved,  and  the  public  deceived,  by  the 
following  artifice.  Unitarians  are  Congregationalists  ;  you  assist  indi- 
viduals of  this  denomination  who  have  embraced  orthodox  sentiments  ; 
you  therefore  feel  justified  in  affirming  that  you  aid  Congregationalists. 
And  further,  you  assist  none  but  young  men  of  hopeful  piety ;  the 
candidate  must  bring  testimonials  to  this  effect  from  proper  authority  ; 
11 


8^  LETTER  I. 

none  but  orthodox  recommendations  answer  this  description  ;  and  no 
orthodox  man  will  consider  a  person  of  known  unitarian  views  as  hope- 
fully pious.  You  therefore  feel  justified  in  declarinor,  that  such  are 
refused  assistance,  not  because  they  are  unitarians,  but  because  they 
give  no  proper  evidence  of  hopeful  piety.  On  this  ground,  all  persons 
of  known  unitarian  sentiments  are  denied  the  aid  of  the  Education 
Society.  And  is  not  this  oppressive,  since  a  portion  of  your  funds 
was  received   from  unitarian  benevolence  ? 

The  next  circumstance,  to  which  I  alluded,  is  this.  The  Society  is 
truly  exclusive  in  its  dismission  of  beneficiaries.  A  strict  watch  is 
maintained  over  their  religious  opinions.  If  one  is  discovered  to  be 
verging  towards  liberal  views,  he  is  warned,  threatened,  coaxed,  and 
almost  bribed.  But  if  he  should  prove  sufficiently  independent  to 
withstand  such  influence,  and  should  pursue  his  inquiries  until  he  ar- 
rive on  the  stable  foundation  of  unitarianism,  he  is  forthwith  dismiss- 
ed from  the  list  of  beneficiaries,  although  he  still  makes  the  Bible  the 
sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  continues  to  exhibit 
a  Christian  character.  The  board  of  directors  assign  no  reason  for 
their  conduct;  and  wh«n  the  real  cause  of  such  treatment  is  demand- 
ed at  their  hand,  they  coolly  inform  him,  that  he  is  not  so  pious  as  for- 
merly. And  if  this  be  not  satisfactory,  and  he  still  demands  a  more 
explicit  reason,  he  is  led  to  understand,  that  a  unitarian  belief  is  in- 
consistent with  evangelical  piety.  To  substantiate  all  that  I  have  here 
stated,  facts  can  be  produced  whenever  the  proper  period  arrives.  I 
have  omitted  giving  particular  instances,  on  account  of  the  individuals 
concerned,  having  no  desire  to  bring  their  names  before  the  public  un- 
necessarily. Such  is  the  course  pursued  by  the  Education  Society  to 
make  the  community  believe  they  are  liberal  in  their  reception  and 
dismission  of  beneficiaries,  when  the  most  rigid  system  of  exclusion 
is  practised. 

The  last  circumstance,  to  which  I  alluded,  is  this.  The  Society 
adopt  a  singular  series  of  measures  to  prevent  their  beneficiaries  from 
embracing  unitarianism.  To  some  of  the  more  important  I  will  briefly 
advert.  If  the  beneficiary  wishes  to  receive  his  collegiate  education 
at  Cambridge,  every  possible  exertion  is  made  to  frighten  him  from 
such  a  proceeding.  The  labors  of  the  general  secretary  proved  suc- 
cessful in  preventing  several  young  men  from  entering  Harvard  Uni- 
versity at  the  last  commencement.  If  the  beneficiary  visit  freely  in 
unitarian  families  while  teaching  a  winter  school,  he  is  called  to  ac- 
count for  his  conduct.  I  boarded  with  one,  who  was  complained  of 
by  an  orthodox  clergyman  for  visiting  in  light  and  trifling  company, 
simply  because  he  attended  a  weekly  reading  party  in  an  unitarian 
parish.  The  beneficiary  is  occasionally  presented  with  books  of  a 
truly  orthodox  stamp  and  an  allowance  of  some  hundreds  of  tracts 
is  put  into  his  hands  for  gratuitous  distribution.    In  this  way,  his  or- 


LETTER  I.  83 

thodox  impressions  are  confirmed  ;  and  liis  zeal  in  orthodox  measures 
Jcept  glowing  and  burning.  The  beneficiary  receives  an  annual  visit 
from  an  appointed  agent,  who  converses  with  him  freely  on  his  religious 
opinions,  and  worms  out  his  real  sentiments  on  all  controverted  questions 
of  theology.  He  then  prays  with  him,  and  especially  for  him ;  and  in- 
forms tiie  Almighty  of  the  dangers  to  which  he  is  exposed,  and  what 
means  are  necessary  to  preserve  him  in  the  paths  of  orthodoxy.  All 
those  beneficiaries,  who  reside  at  the  same  literary  institution,  are 
obliged  to  assemble  together  once  a  month,  according  to  the  laws  of  a 
printed  constitution.  They  must  make  one  of  their  number  the  secretary 
of  the  body,  who  is  to  keep  an  account  of  all  absences  from  the  monthly 
meetings,  note  all  aberrations  in  thought,  word,  and  deed,  and  trans- 
mit a  faithful  history  of  the  same  to  the  general  secretary.  His  an- 
swer will  then  be  read  for  the  special  benefit  of  all  concerned.  The 
constitution  further  requires,  that  four  prayers  be  made  on  each  eve- 
ning of  meeting,  and  specifies  the  subjects.  One  is  to  be  especially 
for  their  secretary,  that  he  may  be  faithful  in  recording  their  errors 
and  failings  ;  and  also  for  the  whole  Education  Society.  Another  is 
to  be  made  for  the  cause  of  orthodoxy  in  the  institution  in  which  they 
are  stationed.  A  third  is  for  the  success  of  orthodox  missions.  And 
a  fourth  for  the  conversion  of  the  world  to  orthodoxy.  If  this  is  not 
binding  down  the  young  men  to  the  cause  of  a  party,  I  know  not  how 
it  can  be  done.  Every  beneficiary  must  give  his  note  to  repay  all  he  re- 
ceives after  he  shall  have  been  settled  in  tlie  ministry  three  or  four 
years.  How  those  who  are  ordained  over  your  feeble  churches  are  to 
comply  with  this  condition  is  more  than  I  can  understand.  Every 
thing  connected  with  the  Society  is  directly  calculated  to  keep  the 
minds  of  the  beneficiaries  on  one  grand  concern;  the  grand  concern 
of  orthodoxy.  I  think  this  brief  statement  of  facts  is  sufficient  to  con- 
vince liberal-minded  men,  of  all  parties,  that  your  Society  do  not  a 
little  to  ofier  a  bounty  on  orthodoxy ;  not  a  little  that  is  enslaving  to 
the  minds  of  the  young  men  you  aid  ;  and  not  a  little  that  is  subver- 
sive of  religious  liberty,  free  inquiry,  and  the  principles  of  Congrega- 
tionalism. 

2.  Praying.  Secondly.  Look  at  certain  orthodox  prayers.  I  will 
mention/oiw  classes  which  appear  to  me  to  be  truly  unchristian.  And, 
Jirst,  take  those  instances  in  which  orthodox  believers  undertake  to 
judge  the  hearts  of  unitarian  preachers,  and  proclaim  their  unchar- 
itable judgments  to  the  world,  in  their  solemn  addresses  to  the  Deity. 
I  allude  to  those  prayers  of  frequent  recurrence  in  which  orthodox 
ministers  earnestly  pray  for  the  conversion  of  unitarian  pastors.  Not 
to  deal  in  generals,  I  will  take  one  example  from  the  multitude  of 
cases  within  my  knowledge.  When  I  was  residing  in  Billerica,  a  few 
years  since,  one  of  the  students  of  your  semmary  held  a  meeting  at 
the  house  of  a  certain  widow  lady.     Almost  the  whole  of  his  prayer 


84  LETTER  I. 

on  the  occasion  was  for  the  late  venerable  Dr.  Cumings,  then  senior 
pastor  of  the  church  in  that  town.  He  became  exceedingly  earnest, 
and  even  agonizing.  The  substance  of  his  petition  was  this  ;  that  this 
aged  minister  might  he^n  the  great  work  of  salvation  before  called  to 
render  up  his  solemn  account ;  that  he  might  be  converted,  regene- 
rated^ born  again,  and  not  suffered  to  leave  the  world  with  his  unre- 
pented  sins  on  his  soul. 

Now,  Sir,  will  you  not  pronounce  such  prayers  unchristian  ?  Did 
he  not  judge  the  heart  of  his  elder  brother  ? — pronounce  it  wicked  and 
unregenerate  ?  And  for  what  cause  ?  Simply  because  the  worthy 
servant  of  Christ  did  not  believe  the  articles  of  his  human  creed.  For 
no  pretence  was  ever  made,  that  his  Christian  temper  and  conduct 
were  peculiarly  defective.  Just  review  the  circumstances.  Here  is  a 
minister  of  the  gospel.  He  once  believed  the  trinitarian  creed.  He 
searched  the  Scriptures  prayerfully,  and  found  no  support  for  his  pe- 
culiar opinions.  Like  a  true  disciple,  he  sacrificed  his  erroneous  sen- 
timents on  the  altar  of  divine  truth.  He  manifested  the  spirit  of  his 
Master  to  an  uncommon  degree,  during  a  ministry  of  nearly  sixty 
years.  When  the  infirmities  of  age  had  palsied  his  powers,  a  young 
man  of  very  little  theological  knowledge,  and  no  uncommon  excellen- 
cies of  character,  comes  among  his  devoted  people.  In  solemn  prayer 
he  assures  them  that  their  revered  friend  and  pastor  has  never  been 
converted  ;  that  he  has  yet  to  begin  the  great  work  of  life  ;  that  he 
has  been  leading  them  in  the  ways  of  error  and  perdition  ;  and  that 
he  must  go  down  to  everlasting  woe  unless  the  Lord  regenerate  his 
soul  most  speedily. 

Do  bring  this  case  home  to  your  own  conscience.  Suppose  a  bold 
and  confident  young  man,  who  has  just  begun  the  study  of  theology, 
should  be  sent  from  Cambridge  into  your  neighbourhood.  Suppose 
he  should,  by  any  means,  collect  a  few  of  your  pupils  and  friends  to 
hear  him  hold  forth.  Suppose  he  should  make  most  of  his  prayer  relate 
to  yourself;  and  earnestly  beseech  the  Almighty  to  convert  your  soul, 
and  enable  you  to  beg^in  the  work  of  salvation  before  called  to  render 
up  your  solemn  account.  You  will  admit  that  he  would  have  as  much 
right,  and  as  Scriptural  reasons,  for  saying  all  tliis  in  relation  to  you,  as 
your  pupil  had  for  saying  it  in  respect  to  Dr.  Cumings.  For  you 
certainly  will  not  pretend  that  you  give  better  evidence  in  your  temper 
and  conduct  of  being  born  again,  the  only  Scriptural  evidence  on  this 
question,  than  the  Doctor  had  exhibited  for  more  than  half  a  century. 
Should  such  a  case  occur,  would  you  not  say  that  the  young  man  had 
travelled  out  of  his  province,  and  taken  too  much  on  himself?  Would 
you  not  aver,  that  he  had  violated  a  plain  command  of  Jesus  in  pro- 
nouncing you  unconverted  ?  —  that  he  was  endeavouring  to  injure  your 
usefulness  and  character  by  uttering  opinions  in  liis  prayers  which  he 
would  hardly  presume  to  make  in    his  discourses  ?  —  that  he  was  at- 


LETTER  I.  86 

tempting  to  alienate  from  you  the  confidence  and  affection  of  your 
friends  and  supporters  ?  —  and  that  such  a  practice  was  inconsistent 
with  free  inquiry  and  religious  liberty  ?  Why  then  should  not  the  same 
things  be  said  of  your  theological  students  ? 

And,  secondly,  take  those  instances  which  strike  at  the  foundation  of 
domestic  happiness.  I  allude  to  those  examples  in  wliich  orthodox 
wives  have  been  encouraged  to  meet  together  to  pray  for  the  conversion 
of  their  unitarian  husbands,  and  confer  on  the  subject,  and  devise  new 
means  of  influence.  Now,  Sir,  do  you  really  believe  that  such  a  pro- 
ceeding can  be  productive,  on  any  principle,  of  sufficient  good  to  com- 
pensate for  the  domestic  misunderstandings  and  distrust  it  must  engen- 
der ?  Is  it  not  consistent  with  your  consciences  or  with  orthodoxy  to 
spare  the  peace  and  sanctity  of  our  homes  ?  On  this  topic,  however,  I 
forbear  to  dwell,  though  I  have  evidence  in  my  possession  to  convince 
any  candid  person  that  the  public  are  as  yet  but  half  apprized  of  the 
extent  of  the  evil. 

Look  then,  thirdly,  at  those  instances  in  which  whole  bodies  of  men 
are  prayerfully  slandered.  I  allude  to  the  extensive  combination 
among  the  orthodox  to  pray  for  the  conversion  of  Harvard  University. 
This  union  has  been  formed  some  time,  but  has  lately  been  awakened 
to  more  fervent  devotions  by  the  charitable  exertions  of  an  agent  of 
your  party.  He  has  recently  visited  various  and  distant  parts  of  this 
commonwealth,  and  solemnly  assured  many  congregations,  that  this 
ancient  college  had  become  a  poisoned  fountain ;  that  it  would  be 
tempting  God,  to  send  their  sons  to  this  seat  of  learning ;  that  unless 
funds  are  raised  to  erect  a  church,  an  orthodox  church,  in  the  very 
vicinity  of  this  synagogue  of  Satan,  we  are  all  dead  men  and  dead 
women.  After  getting  the  one  thing  needful,  he  exhorts  them  to  be 
very  fervent  in  tlieir  prayers  for  the  conversion  of  Harvard  University. 
And  many  of  the  orthodox,  believing  these  stories,  unite  very  sincerely 
one  hour  a  week  to  pray  for  some  special  aid  from  Heaven  to  make  this 
college  orthodox  in  its  creed. 

Now,  Sir,  will  you  not  pronounce  this  an  unchristian  and  illiberal 
measure  ?  Just  bring  the  practice  home  to  your  own  feelings.  Suppose 
the  unitarians  should  form  a  combination  to  pray  an  hour  a  week  for  the 
conversion  of  your  theological  seminary.  Suppose  they  should  com- 
mission some  fiery  zealot  to  visit  the  various  parts  of  the  commonwealth 
for  this  object.  Suppose  he  should  declare,  that  you  had  become  dis- 
satisfied with  the  Scriptures,  and  had  set  up  a  human  standard  of 
religious  truth  ;  that  you  were  training  up  young  men  to  disturb  the 
harmony  of  our  families,  neighbourhoods,  and  societies  ;  and  that  you 
allowed  no  freedom  of  opinion  and  thought  to  your  pupils.  Suppose  he 
should  affirm,  that  the  instructers  had  lately  been  so  divided  among 
themselves  as  to  lead  the  students  to  think  they  were  possessed  of  very 
little  religion;   and  that  the  students  adhered  so  tenaciously  to  the 


8d  LETTER  I. 

ejected  professor,  as  to  cause  the  other  heads  of  the  faculty  to  fear 
they  were  destitute  of  piety.  Suppose  he  should  aver,  tliat  unless  a 
mass  of  money  was  obtained  to  erect  a  unitarian  church  on  Institution 
Hill,  Ave  are  all  dead  men  and  dead  women.  You  will  allow  that  he 
would  have  as  much  foundation  in  trutli  for  such  assertions,  as  your 
commissioned  beggar  had  for  most  of  his  declarations.  And  suppose 
such  exertions  should  be  successful  in  organizing  a  union  to  pray  for 
the  conversion  of  your  seminary  to  unitarianism.  Would  you  not  pro- 
nounce such  a  measure  truly  unchristian,  illiberal,  and  uncharitable  ? 
And  is  the  same  conduct  any  less  unchristian  when  perpetrated  by 
orthodox  leaders  ?  when  a  union  is  formed  for  prayerfully  slandering 
Harvard  University  ? 

And,  fowthly,  look  at  those  instances  in  which  unitarians  are  forced 
to  give  an  outward  assent  to  the  trinitarian  belief.  I  allude  to  those 
unscriptural  doxologies  which  are  sung  in  orthodox  churches  at  the 
close  of  religious  exercises.  The  congregation  are  expected  to 
arise  and  stand  during  this  solemn  act  of  worship ;  and  to  have  the 
following  or  similar  sentiments  pass  through  their  minds  : 

«  To  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son, 
And  God  the  Spirit,  Three  in  One, 
Be  honor,  praise,  and  glory  given, 
By  all  on  earth  and  all  in  heaven." 

Now,  Sir,  is  not  this  an  unchristian  practice  ?  For  there  are  but 
veiy  few  orthodox  societies  in  this  commonwealth  which  do  not  contain 
a  considerable  number  of  unitarians.  And  should  they  dare  to  assert 
their  rights,  and  either  leave  the  church  or  remain  sitting  during  this 
act  of  devotion,  the  indignation  of  the  minister  and  his  friends  would  be 
heaped  on  their  heads.  I  indeed  know  that  some  have  been  sufficiently 
independent  to  withstand  this  imposition.  In  one  place,  a  distinguished 
judge  arose  and  informed  the  preacher  that  no  such  metisures  would  be 
tolerated  in  that  congregation.  In  another  society,  numbers  would  not 
arise  while  the  human  creed  was  uttered  by  the  voice  of  music.  In 
several  instances,  the  singers  have  refused  tlms  to  profess  what  they 
disbelieved.  I  hope  such  worthy  examples  may  be  generally  imitated. 
For  this  is  a  modern  invention  in  our  congregational  churches.  I  be- 
lieve such  doxologies  were  never  sung  in  Andover  until  after  the  estab- 
lishment of  your  theological  seminary.  I  think  they  were  not  intro- 
duced into  many  of  the  orthodox  societies  in  your  county  until  after 
that  period.  And  a  more  illiberal  practice  cannot  well  be  imagined. 
For  the  design  evidently  is  to  impress  an  article  of  ortliodox  belief  on 
the  minds  of  the  young,  before  they  are  able  to  investigate  the  subject 
for  themselves  ;  and  also  to  beat  tliis  error  into  the  heads  of  tlie  adult 
by  dint  of  frequent  repetition.  The  pious  Watts,  who  wrote  so  many  of 
these  contradictory  lines,  would  have  expunged  them  all  from  his  hymn- 


LETTER  I.  8t 

book  before  he  died,  had  he  not  disposed  of  the  copy  right  of  the  work. 
And  who-will  dare  affirm  that  there  is  any  Scriptural  authority  for  such 
a  usage  ?  Just  reverse  the  case.  Suppose  a  doxology  could  be  framed 
which  would  express  the  Catholic  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Suppose 
a  part  of  their  congregations  was  composed  of  Protestants.  Suppose 
they  were  compelled,  sabbath  after  sabbath,  to  rise  and  stand  while  this 
act  of  unscriptural  worship  was  performed.  Would  you  not  call  such  a 
practice  unchristian  and  illiberal  ?  I  have  room  for  no  more  facts  on 
this  subject.  Very  many  examples  of  a  more  striking  and  unchristian 
character  must  be  omitted.  I  think  these  are  sufficient  to  convince 
candid  minds  that  certain  orthodox  prayers  are  subversive  of  free 
inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism. 

3.  Withholding  Patronage.  Thirdly.  Look  at  some  of  the  orthodox 
measures  for  depriving  unitarians  of  the  means  of  subsistence.  Ortho- 
dox ministers  have  urged  their  people  to  vote  for  none  but  orthodox 
Christians  for  public  offices.  They  have  advised  parents  to  take  their 
children  from  well  conducted  schools,  because  their  instructors  attend- 
ed unitarian  meetings.  Orthodox  laymen  have  withdrawn  their  patron- 
age from  mechanics,  merchants,  physicians,  and  lawyers,  because  they 
embraced  unitarian  sentiments.  So  many  instances  of  this  kind  now 
occur  to  my  mind,  that  T  know  not  where  to  begin  the  selection.  I  will 
however  take  a  case  which  involves  many  principles  as  well  as  indi- 
viduals. The  circumstances  are  briefly  these.  A  high  school  was 
established  in  Geneseo,  New  York.  Three  young  men,  graduates 
of  Harvard  University,  entered  into  written  engagements  to  take  charge 
of  the  institution.  The  simple  circumstance  of  their  receiving  degrees 
at  Cambridge  was  sufficient  to  arouse  the  enmity  of  orthodox  leaders. 
Accordingly  the  minister  of  the  place  drew  up  the  following  circular, 
and  endeavoured  to  obtain  the  names  of  the  influential  inhabitants  of  the 
county. 

"A  memorial  of  sundry  inhabitants  of  the  County  of  Livingston 
addressed  to  the  stockholders  of  the  Livingston  County  High  School. — 
We,  the  undersigned,  inhabitants  of  the  County  of  Livingston,  having 
been  informed  that  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Livingston  County 
High  School  have  employed  as  instructors  in  said  school,  three  young 
men  from  Harvard  University,  beg  leave  respectfully  to  represent,  that, 
coming  as  they  do  from  a  college  which  has  long  been  known  to  the 
Christian  community  as  the  fountain  of  the  most  destructive  heresy, 
with  professions  of  neutrality  in  relation  to  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  religion,  which  facts  are  accompanied  with  a  train  of  circum- 
stances which  renders  it  extremely  probable,  if  not  morally  certiin,  that 
they  are  deeply  imbued  with,  and  highly  in  favor  of  unitarian  sentiments, 
we  cannot,  consistently  with  our  duty  to  God,  to  the  community  in 
which  we  live,  and  to  the  youth  of  our  country,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly support  or  encourage  the  school,  while  under  their  auspices ;  as 


88  LETTER  I. 

we  conscientiously  believe  in  so  doing,  we  ehould  be  instrumental  in 
disseminating  principles  wiiicli  strike  directly  at  the  root  of  the  faith,  as 
held  by  all  the  Christian  denominations  of  tliis  country." 

You  perceive  tliat  the  writer  speaks  of  a  "train  of  circumstances." 
To  what  does  he  allude  ?  He  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wisner  of 
Boston  for  information  on  this  subject;  and  the  reverend  gentleman 
returned  a  very  full  answer.  I  have  not  a  copy  of  the  letter  by  me  ; 
but  if  I  should  meet  the  author  I  should  ask  him  the  following  questions. 
Did  you  not  intimate  that  unitarians  in  this  region  were  designing  to  in- 
troduce unitarianism  into  the  western  part  of  New  York  ?  —  that  these 
young  men  were  doubtless  the  tools  of  the  leaders  ?  —  tliat  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  ortliodox  to  oppose  tlieir  coming? — and  tliat  if  they 
could  not  effect  this  object  in  any  other  way,  they  had  better  open  an 
opposition  school?  An  affirmative  answer  to  these  inquiries  will 
explain  the  train  of  circumstances.  And  what  was  the  object  to  be 
effected  by  this  memorial  ?  It  was  to  awaken  the  zeal  of  the  stock- 
holders so  that  they  might  assemble  and  choose  a  new  board  of  direc- 
tors, and  thus  break  the  written  engagement  of  the  old  board.  But  it 
was  generally  known  in  that  region,  that  one  of  the  three  young  men 
was  orthodox  in  his  opinions ;  and  but  few  names  could  be  obtained. 
A  new  memorial  was  therefore  circulated  with  the  word  two  inserted  in 
the  place  of  three ;  and  to  this  a  large  number  of  signatures  was  at- 
tached. But  instead  of  presenting  that  to  the  stockholders,  they  took 
the  names  and  placed  them  on  the  one  I  have  copied.  It  seems  they 
could  not  consistently  with  their  duty  to  God  have  young  men  from 
Cambridge,  but  they  could  practise  a  gross  deception  in  perfect  con- 
sistency with  this  duty.  I  will  not  add  one  word  to  this  plain  state- 
ment of  facts  ;  for  this  alone  is  sufficient  to  awaken  the  indignation  of  all 
honorable  minds.  I  will  merely  say,  that  I  hope  the  time  will  speedOy 
arrive,  when  these  persons  can  exhibit  an  example  of  old  fashioned  hon- 
esty, consistently  with  their  duty  to  God. 

4.  Convention  of  Congregational  Ministers.  Fourthly.  Look  to  some 
of  the  proceedings  of  orthodox  leaders  in  the  convention  of  ministers. 
A  few  words  of  explanation  seem  necessary  to  render  my  statements 
intelligible  to  the  community.  The  churches  of  this  commonwealth 
were  originally  of  the  congregational  order.  Their  pastors  were  early 
accustomed  to  assemble  at  Boston  in  Election  week,  and  to  consult  as 
equals  and  brethren  on  the  interests  of  religion.  They  now  have  con- 
siderable funds  at  their  disposal,  which  were  obtained  in  the  following 
manner.  A  donation  was  made  by  one  Judah  Monis,  a  converted 
Jew;  large  sums  were  aflerwards  received  from  benevolent  individ- 
uals ;  and  there  is  an  annual  contribution  immediately  after  the  conven- 
tion sermon.  The  proceeds  of  these  funds  were  first  bestowed  on 
indigent  clergymen;  aflerwards  on  their  widows  and  children;  but 
are  now  confined  to  the  indigent  widows  of  congregational  ministers. 


LETTER  I.  89 

By  looking  over  the  list  of  donors,  you  will  perceive  that  no  small 
amount  of  the  property  of  the  convention  was  given  by  unitarian  or 
liberal  Christians. 

The  convention  seldom,  if  ever,  assumed  any  ecclesiastical  authority 
or  jurisdiction  ;  although  orthodox  leaders  occasionally  attempted  such 
measures.  The  elder  clergy  will  doubtless  recollect  the  speech  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Allen  of  Pittsfield,  which  openly  exposed  the  iniquity  of 
Drs.  Morse  and  Lyman.  In  1804  it  was  proposed  to  convert  the  con- 
vention into  a  General  Association,  and  confer  upon  it  the  powers  usu- 
ally assumed  and  exercised  by  that  body.  But  public  opinion  prevented 
the  success  of  this  attempt,  although  the  committee  reported  in  favor 
of  such  a  measure.  The  most  daring  attempt  was  commenced  in  1821, 
and  frustrated  in  1823.  In  1821  an  application  was  made  to  the  con- 
vention, by  three  ministers,  calling  themselves  the  Old  Colony  Associa- 
tion, for  an  answer  to  the  following  question  :  "  What  is  a  congrega- 
tional church,  with  which  we  may  have  fellowship,  as  such  .5"  The 
request  was  scarcely  noticed.  The  next  year  the  North  Worcester 
Association  proposed  the  following  question :  "  What  is  a  Christian 
church,  with  which  we  ougJit  to  hold  communion,  as  such  ?  "  The  whole 
business  had  been  planned  and  concluded  on  with  intended  secrecy  in 
Park  Street  vestry.  The  committee  which  had  been  previously  selected 
was  chosen,  consisting  of  twelve  orthodox  members  and  one  unitarian, 
and  authorized  to  report  at  the  next  annual  meeting.  Exertion  was 
made  to  have  t'he  report  printed  an  1  circulated  during  the  year,  but 
was  frustrated.  Your  frienl.  Dr.  Woods,  was  chairman  of  this  com- 
mittee ;  but  he  did  not  find  all  the  other  members  so  tractable  as  he 
wished.  He  wrote  a  dictatorial  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Stearns,  of  Bed- 
ford ;  and  received  in  answer  a  few  homely  but  wholesoma  truths. 
However,  the  report  was  finished,  and  at  the  meeting  in  1823,  was  read 
to  the  convention.  A  motion  was  made  by  yourself  to  have  it  printed. 
But  you  mistook  your  men.  No  notice  was  taken  of  your  desire  ;  but 
the  following  vote  quickly  passed  :  "  That  the  convention  tvill  take  no 
FURTHER  order  on  the  subject. ^^  And  what  was  the  substance  of  this 
famous  report.  Simply  this.  That  a  Christian  church,  ivith  which  we 
ought  to  hold  communion,  must  subscribe  the  orthodox  creed. 

Now,  Sir,  what  was  the  design  of  your  leaders  in  this  most  daring 
attempt?  What  objects  did  you  expect  to  accomplish .'  Five.  First, 
you  wished  to  learn  what  portion  of  the  orthodox  ministers  were  pre- 
pared to  take  up  arms  against  the  sacred  rights  of  unitarians  ? 
Secondly,  you  wished  to  ascertain  what  portion  were  ready  to  adopt 
a  human  creed,  instead  of  the  Bible,  as  their  standard  of  religious  truth. 
Thirdly,  you  wished  to  drive  the  liberal  clergy  from  the  convention, 
either  by  adopting  a  doctrinal  test,  or  by  a  direct  vote  of  exclusion. 
Fourthly,  you  wished  to  know  how  far  public  sentiment  would  support 
you  in  withdrawing  ministerial  intercourse  from  unitarians.  And 
12 


90  LETTER  I. 

fifthly,  and  especially,  you  wished  to  obtain  complete  possession  of  the 
funds  of  the  convention:  As  you  will  probably  admit  the  correctness 
of  my  four  first  assertions,  no  reasons  need  be  given  in  support  ot  their 
truth.  But  as  the  fifth  implies  a  very  serious  charge,  you  may  wish 
for  proof  The  evidence,  which  was  perfectly  satisfactory  to  my  own 
mind,  is  this.  At  that  time  I  was  pursuing  theological  studies  with  an 
orthodox  clergyman,  and  from  various  sources  obtained  not  a  few  of  the 
secrets  of  your  denomination.  That  very  week  I  was  in  company  with 
a  member  of  your  Seminary,  one  of  your  favorite  pupils.  I  asked  him 
what  object  was  to  be  gained  by  the  adoption  of  Dr.  Woods's  report, 
the  character  of  which  we  then  knew.  His  answer  was  simply  this : 
To  exclude  the  unitarians^  and  obtain  possession  of  the  funds.  The 
answer  made  a  deep  impression  on  my  mind,  and  aided  essentially  in 
opening  my  eyes  to  the  policy  of  the  orthodox  leaders.  I  soon  repeated 
the  statement  to  others,  and  continued  to  do  the  same  thing  whenever 
occasion  has  since  required.  I  do  not  say  that  your  pupil  had  any 
authority  to  make  this  assertion  ;  but  I  do  say,  that  I  then  believed  he 
uttered  the  literal  truth  ;  and  that  this  evidence  has  ever  been  per- 
fectly satisfactory  to  my  mind. 

And  by  what  means  was  this  bold  and  unprincipled  measure  frustra- 
ted ?  The  community  were  awake  to  the  question.  On  the  day  for 
reading  the  report,  the  court-house  was  early  filled  to  overflowing  by 
distinguished  laymen  from  all  parts  of  the  Commonwealth.  Their 
appearance  had  considerable  effect  in  intimidating  your  leaders.  But 
much  had  previously  been  done  by  ministers  of  orthodox  sentiments. 
Perhaps  more  credit  is  due  to  the  late  Dr.  Parish,  than  to  any  other 
individual.  He  openly  asserted  that  certain  orthodox  ministers  wished 
to  introduce  religious  tyranny,  and  that  the  Professors  at  Andover  were 
among  the  foremost  of  this  number.  And  to  prevent  the  success  of 
your  attempt,  he  sent  nearly  a  hundred  letters  to  clergymen  in  all  parts 
of  the  State,  urging  their  attendance  at  the  convention,  and  their  oppo- 
sition to  your  designed  intolerant  measure.  In  this  way,  all  the  secret 
consultations,  and  artful  manoeuvring,  and  laborious  exertions,  of  the 
leaders  of  your  party  were  overruled,  and  by  producing  a  strong  reac- 
tion only  served  to  injure  the  cause  they  were  intended  to  promote. 
I  need  not  add  one  word  to  impress  upon  the  public  mind  the  illiberal 
character  of  such  an  undertaking. 

5.  Jindover  Theolof^cal  Seminary.  Fifthly.  Many  of  the  proceed* 
ings  in  your  Institution  appear  to  me  illiberal  and  unchristian.  Faithful 
records  of  several  exclusive  measures  are  now  in  unitarian  hands.  I  am 
prevented  from  making  use  of  the  existing  documents  on  account  of 
one  or  two  unavoidable  circumstances.  They  will  doubtless  bo  pub- 
li.rihed  in  due  season.  I  shall  not  therefore  be  so  definite  and  full  under 
this  head  as  I  expected.  I  will  merely  ask  you  five  questions.  And, 
firsts  have  you  not  declared,  that  you  care  not  what  opinions  the  yoimg 


LETTER  I.  91 

men  entertain  when  they  enter  your  Seminary  ;  but  that  you  shall  exert 
all  jour  influence  to  make  them  embrace  orthodox  sentiments  ;  and  that 
if  you  are  not  successful  in  this  particular,  you  shall  withhold  from  them 
your  approbation  when  they  leave  your  institution?  . I  know  you  are 
bound  to  this  course  by  your  solemn  obligations.  But  is  such  a  pro- 
ceeding consistent  with  free  inquiry  and  religious  liberty  ?  Ought  not 
your  influence  to  be  exerted  for  the  discovery  of  truth  ;  and  to  preserve 
the  minds  of  your  pupils  from  prejudice  ?  Ought  they  not  to  have  both 
sides  of  every  question  candidly  stated,  and  be  left  to  decide  for  them- 
selves on  which  the  argument  preponderates  ?  Ought  they  not  to  be 
rewarded  for  an  honest  and  fearless  examination  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
a  rigid  adherence  to  what  appears  to  be  the  real  meaning  of  the  sacred 
writers,  rather  than  punished  for  departing  from  the  human  standard  of 
orthodoxy  ?  How  very  different  the  measures  adopted  by  you  and  by 
unitarian  Professors.  Look  simply  at  the  introductory  remarks  of  Dr. 
Taylor's  Theological  Lectures.  Here  they  are.  "  I  do  solemnly  charge 
you,  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  truth,  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
is  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,  and  before  whose  judgment-seat 
you  must,  in  no  long  time,  appear ;  that  in  all  your  studies  and  inquiries 
of  a  religious  nature,  present  or  future,  you  do  constantly,  carefully, 
impartially,  and  conscientiously  attend  to  evidence  as  it  lies  in  the 
holy  Scriptures,  or  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  the  dictates  of  reason  ; 
carefully  guarding  against  the  sallies  of  imagination,  and  the  fallacy 
of  ill  grounded  conjecture.  That  you  admit,  embrace,  or  assent  to  no 
principle  or  sentiment  by  me  taught  or  advanced,  but  only  so  far  as  it 
shall  appear  to  you  to  be  justified  by  proper  evidence  from  revelation, 
or  reason  of  things.  That  if,  at  any  time  hereafter,  any  principle  or 
sentiment  by  me  taught  or  advanced,  or  by  you  admitted  and  embraced, 
shall,  upon  impartial  and  faithful  examination,  appear  to  you  to  be  du- 
bious or  false,  you  either  suspect  or  totally  reject,  such  principle  or 
sentiment.  That  you  keep  your  mind  always  open  to  evidence  ;  that 
you  labor  to  banish  from  your  breast  all  prejudice,  prepossession,  and 
party  zeal ;  that  you  study  to  live  in  peace  and  love  with  all  your  fellow 
Christians  ;  and  that  you  steadily  assert  for  yourself,  and  freely  allow  to 
others,  the  unalienable  right  of  judgment  and  conscience."  This 
divine  was  not  afraid  to  trust  either  himself  or  his  pupils  with  the  use  of 
their  reason  or  the  study  of  their  Bible.  But  how  very  different  must 
be  your  charge  to  your  students.  In  substance  and  reality  it  can 
amount  to  nothing  more  than  this.  '  Unless  you  believe  all  the  articles 
of  the  human  standard  which  I  have  sworn  to  defend,  I  will  not  give 
you  my  approbation  when  you  leave  my  Seminary.  And  I  do  from  the 
heart  believe,  that  your  eternal  salvation  is  connected  with  a  hearty 
assent  to  the  fundamental  principles  which  I  avow.' 

And,  secondly^  are  you  not  in  the  common  practice  of  speaking  against 
unitarians  before  your  pupils  ?    Do  you  not  often  attempt  to  ridicule 


9t  LETTER  I. 

and  sneer  at  their  opinions,  criticisms,  and  arguments  ?  Do  you  not 
aim  to  make  them  appear  contemptible  as  scholars,  critics,  and  Chris- 
tians ?  Do  you  not  strive  to  prevent  your  students  from  becoming 
acquainted  with  tlieir  writings,  or  characters,  or  persons  ?  Do  you  not 
labor  to  excite  and  increase  tlieir  enmity  to  the  denomination?  Have 
you  not  carried  this  measure  to  such  excess,  as  to  cause  one  of  your 
devoted  students  to  declare,  that  you  were  "  rea  ly  too  bad."  I  know 
you  are  bound  to  this  course  by  your  solemn  oatli ;  lor  this  is  one  of  the 
easiest  ways  in  which  you  can  oppose  tlie  unitarian  heresy.  But  how 
different  from  the  dignified  and  Christian  conduct  of  the  theological 
Professors  at  Cambridge  ! 

And,  thirdly,  are  you  not  accuetomed  to  treat  the  objections  of  your 
pupils  to  your  favorite  opinions  in  an  illiberal  manner  ?  I  know  tliat 
you  and  your  colleague  request  the  students  to  make  their  remarks. 
But  how  often  are  their  observations  treated  with  ridicule,  with  con- 
tempt, with  impatience,  with  peevishness,  more  especially  if  they  are 
in  opposition  to  any  of  the  articles  of  your  human  formulary  of  faith  ? 
Is  this  the  wiy  you  encourage  tlie  spirit  of  free  inquiry  and  religious 
liberty  ? 

And,  fourthly,  have  not  students  in  your  Seminary  been  cruelly  perse- 
cuted for  controverting  some  of  your  favorite  opinions  ?  Take  one 
example  of  no  very  distant  date.  As  your  respected  friend,  Dr. 
Woods,  had  the  principal  hand  in  this  particular  instance,  I  will  put  a 
few  questions  to  his  conscience.  Sir,  do  you  recollect  one  James 
Kimball  ?  Did  you  not  summon  him  to  your  room  on  a  certain  evening  ? 
Had  you  then  seen  any  fault  in  him  ?  Had  he  been  guilty  of  no  offence 
but  the  one  you  specified?  —  that  of  making  his  classmates  smile  by 
the  dissertations  which  he  read  in  your  presence  "?  Was  not  the  real 
cause  of  grievance  a  very  different  thing  ?  Were  you  not  offended 
because  he  was  courageous  enough  to  controvert  some  of  your  favorite 
positions  ?  So  he  Jirmly  believed  until  the  hour  of  his  death.  And  did 
you  not  again  summon  him  to  your  room  near  tlie  close  of  the  second 
year  of  his  course  ?  Of  what  crime  had  he  then  been  guilty  ?  Had  he 
committed  any  offence  against  morality  or  religion?  Did  you  even 
charge  him  with  any  ?  Did  you  not  affirm  that  you  could  name  no 
fault?  —  that  you  could  not  put  your  finger  upon  any'?  Did  you  not 
studiously  avoid  making  any  accusation  against  him  whatever  ?  Did 
you  not  know,  that  as  a  diligent  student,  and  a  plain,  conscientious 
Christian,  he  had  done  nothing  of  which  he  ought  to  be  ashamed  ? 
Why  then  did  you  endeavour  to  intimidate  and  disheart<in  a  man  who 
had  made  such  exertions  and  sacrifices  to  acquire  an  education  ?  —  who 
had  been  encouraged  to  work  his  way  tlirough  college  by  the  hope  of 
being  useful  in  the  ministry  ?  —  who  had  already  been  nearly  two  years 
in  your  Seminary  without  reproach  ?  Why  did  you  wish  to  discourage 
such  a  man  by  threatening  to  deprive  him  of  the  pecuniary  assistance 


LETTER  I.  93 

which  was  bestowed  on  others,  whose  intellectual,  moral,  and  religious 
qualifications  were  not  superior  to  his  ?     Why  did  you  advise  him  to 
give  up  the  idea  he  had  so  fondly  cherished  of  becoming  a  minister  of 
the  gospel  ?     Why  did  you  attempt  to  drive  him  from  the  institution 
without  the  testimonials  usually  given  to  those  who  leave  before  their 
course  of  study  is  completed  ?     Was  it  right  thus  to  blast  the  sacred 
hopes  for  which  he  had  toiled  seven  or  eight  of  the  best  years  of  man- 
hood ? —  and  for  no  fault  you  could  name,  for  no  crime  en  which  you 
could  put  your  finger  ?     Were  you  not  in  reality  afraid  or  ashamed  to 
name  the  only  offfence  of  which  you  considered  him  guilty  ?  —  that  of 
controverting  some  of  your  favorite  opinions  in  your  presence  ?     And 
because  he  gave   an  honest  account  of  your  treatment  of  him  to  the 
President  of  the  Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy,  did  you  not  pursue  him 
with  an  unrelenting  spirit  ?     Did  you  not  require  him  to  retract  what 
he  had  written,  to  do  what  his  own  conscience  must  have  considered 
base  wickednpss,  or  suffer  the  consequences  ?     And  simply  because  he 
could  not  righteously  make  such  a  recantation  as  was  satisfactory  to 
yourself^    was  he    not  publicly  and   disgracefully  expelled  from  your 
Seminary?  —  and  expelled    too  at  the  very  moment  his    health  was 
evidently  declining?  —  and  declining  too  as  he  and  others  firmly  believ- 
ed under  the  rod  of  cruel  persecution  ?     And  afterward  did  you  not 
even  publicly  forbid  his  attending  morning  and  evening  prayers  in  the 
chapel  ?     After  he  had  been  thus  driven  to  his  native  home,  with  the 
stigma  of  your  expulsion  on  his  character,  did  he  not  exhibit  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  broken-hearted  man  the  remainder  of  his  days  ?     And 
who  can  tell  how  much  unkindness  contributed  to  the  very  destruction 
of  his  life  ?     Can  you  look  back  upon  your  treatment  of  James  Kimball 
with  an  approving  conscience  ?     Can  you  afl[irm  in  the  presence  of  your 
omniscient  Judge,  that  you  granted  him  the  rights  of  free  inquiry  and 
religious  liberty  ?     Let  me  whisper  one  word  in  your  ear.     Remember, 
that  all   the  circumstances  of  this  unhappy  and  melancholy  case  have 
been  recorded  by  a  faithful  hand,  and  that  their  publication  will  not  be 
withheld  from  the  community  for  ever. 

And, finally,  has  not  a  late  Professor  in  your  Seminary  been  cruelly 
persecuted  for  pursuing  an  independent  course?  I  allude  to  the  case 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Murdock.  Did  not  your  difficulties  with  this  colleague 
originate  with  Dr.  Woods  ?  Did  he  not  afterwards  enlist  the  feelings 
of  the  other  Professors  on  his  side  ?  Was  not  the  principal  cause  of 
your  opposition  to  him  occasioned  by  his  unwillingness  to  pursue  your 
plans  and  measures?  Did  you  not  endeavour  to  chastise  him  for  his 
heretical  Sermon  on  the  Atonement?  Did  not  the  Directois  of  the 
Seminary  request  his  opinion  respecting  any  improvements  in  the 
instruction  or  government  of  the  Institution  ?  Did  they  not  promise 
him  their  confidence,  if  he  would  speak  freely  concerning  the  existing 
evils  of  the  school  ?    Did  he  not  rely  upon  their  honor,  and  give  his 


94  LETTER  I. 

written  opinion  of  the  other  Professors  ?  Did  he  not  describe  yourself 
as  exemplifying  m.iny  of  the  characteristics  of  a  Jesuit  ?  Did  not  the 
Directors  then  betray  his  confidence?  Did  not  these  "portraits" 
cause  your  opposition  to  increase  even  to  enmity  ?  Was  not  a  gren- 
erous  sum  then  offered  him  if  he  wouhl  resign  his  office?  Afl(!r  it 
was  discovered  that  he  would  not  he  bribed,  was  he  not  dismissed  by 
a  vote  of  the  Directors  ?  And  was  not  the  aid  of  the  ISupreme  Court 
called  in  to  confirm  their  decision  ?  While  his  trial  was  pending,  did 
you  not  forbifl  tfie  students  visitinw  him  ?  Di.l  you  not  prevent  some 
from  going  to  his  house  to  recite  to  Mr.  Giblts?  Did  you  not  aim  to 
excite  a  prejudice  a^rainst  hicn  in  the  community  ?  Did  he  not  declare, 
that  the  records  of  tlie  Inquit^ition  could  scarcely  furnish  an  instance 
of  such  unjustifiable  and  cruel  persecution  ?  Is  he  not  prevented  from 
giving  a  history  of  the  whole  affair  to  the  public,  for  fear  his  exposure 
of  the  iniquity  of  some  concerned  would  greatly  injure  the  cause  of 
orthodoxy?  Can  you  affirm  that  all  your  proceedinL'S  in  relation  to 
him  were  consistent  with  reli<;ious  liberty  ?  Remember,  that  many  of 
the  facts  in  his  case  have  been  faithfully  recorded,  and  will  not  be 
withheld  from  the  public  for  ever.  In  view  of  all  these  measures,  I 
must  conclude  that  free  inquiry  and  religious  liberty  are  not  enjoyed 
by  the  students  in  your  Theological  Seminary. 

6.  Misrepresentntion.  Sixthly.  Look  at  some  of  the  orthodox  mis- 
representation of  unitarians  and  unitarianism.  I  would  gladly  omit 
any  statement  of  facts  under  this  name  ;  but  a  solemn  sense  of 
duty  compels  me  to  treat  this  unpleasant  topic  with  truth  and  firm- 
ness. I  feel  bound  to  declare,  that  some  individuals  in  good  standing 
among  your  leaders,  have  circulated  most  slanderous  reports  respect- 
ing the  character  and  opinions  of  unitarians.  My  limits  will  permit 
me  to  notice  \)ui  four  different  classes  of  misrepresentations  in  general 
circulation  among  the  orthodox.  And  Jirst,  look  at  those  untruths 
which  strike  at  the  very  foundation  of  our  moral  character,  and  which, 
if  believed,  must  utterly  ruin  our  influence  as  ministers  of  the  gospel. 
So  many  instances  of  this  kind  now  rush  on  my  recollection,  that  I  find 
it  difficult  to  make  a  selection.  One  example  is  this.  A  unitarian 
minister,  the  son  of  an  orthodox  clergyman,  was  ordained  over  a 
society  in  Plymouth  county.  An  orthodox  Christian  in  the  vicinity 
took  pains  to  circulate  the  report,  that  this  man  preached  his  father's 
ortho<lox  sermons ;  and  that  there  was  an  open  disagreement  between 
the  sentiments  of  his  discourses  and  his  unitarian  prayers.  —  Another 
instance  is  this.  An  orthodox  deacon  in  Middlesex  county  reported 
that  a  unitarian  minister  in  the  neighbouring  town  had  declared  to  hi« 
people,  that  he  did  not  believe  a  word  of  the  Bible.  —  A  third  case  is 
this.  An  orthodox  clergyman  in  this  coimly  informed  a  lady  who  had 
left  his  mr-eting,  that  the  unitarian  preacher  in  the  same  town  preach- 
ed sentiments  which  he  did  not  himself  believe.  —  A  fourth  instance  is 


LETTER  I.  96 

this.  Two  orthodox  ministera  were  travelling  in  the  stnjre  with  two 
unitarian  church  members.  One  of  them  asserted,  that  the  present 
Professor  of  PulpiL  Eloquence  and  Pastoral  Care  in  the  University  at 
Cau)bri(lge,  then  residing  in  Europe  for  his  health,  'had  renounced 
Christianity,  and  become  an  infidel.  — As  a  fifth  example,  I  will  take 
one  of  the  multitude  which  have  been  circulated  respecting  myself. 
The  orthodox  minister  in  this  place  has  lately  stated,  that  when  I  was 
journeying  in  New  Hampshire,  last  season,  I  called  at  the  house  of 
an  orthodox  lady ;  that  she  asked  me  if  I  "  was  willing  to  enter  the 
eternal  world  with  my  present  views  and  feelings;"  that  after  re- 
maining silent  and  thoughtful  some  time,  I  boldly  answered  —  "  No," 
I  was  not  willing.  Whether  the  Reverend  gentleman  believed  this 
story  when  he  circulated  it  or  not,  is  not  for  me  to  determine.  I 
must  however  say,  that  had  I  believed  a  similar  report  concerning  him, 
I  should  not  have  whispered  it  about  among  a  few  females ;  l)Ut  I 
should  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  expose  his  hypocrisy  by  proclaiming 
the  evidence  on  the  house-top.  I  now  declare,  that  the  statement 
is  an  absolute  falsehood,  made  out  of  whole  cloth,  having  not  even  the 
shadow  of  a  circumstance  in  truth  for  a  foundation.  And  I  must  also 
proclaim,  that  if  this  man,  or  his  deacon,  or  his  church,  continue  to 
circulate  the  report  after  reading  this,  1  shall  be  obliged  to  consider 
them  as  guilty  of  wilful  slander.  Such  then'fs  a  bare  specimen  of 
those  misrepresentations  with  which  the  orthodox  atmosphere  is 
surcharged.  These  are,  indeed,  sufficiently  aggravated  to  have  been 
propagated  by  professing  Christians;  but  they  are  mild  in  comparison 
with  some  which  I  avecome  to  my  knowledge.  I  have  taken  these  cases 
in  preference,  because  they  can  be  readily  proved  before  a  legal  tribunal. 
Now,  Sir,  will  you  not  pronounce  such  a  practice  most  base  and 
unchristian  ?  And  do  those  individuals  who  Keep  such  ruinous  misrep- 
resentations in  circulation  really  believe  them  to  be  very  truths  ?  Look 
at  the  examples  stated.  Do  they  not  carry  the  evidence  of  falsehood 
in  their  very  front  .^  Why  then  are  they  repeated  by  intelligent  per- 
sons? Is  it  not  done  to  injure  our  influence  and  usefulness  with  the 
ignorant?  —  to  keep  them  from  hearing  our  preaching,  or  reading  our 
publications,  or  becoming  acquainted  with  our  sentiments?  And  it  is  a 
fact,  that  our  very  honesty  has  been  suspected  by  the  less  informed  of 
your  party,  and  our  characters  have  suffered  in  the  estimation  of  unita- 
rians at  a  distance,  by  such  slanderous  stateujents.  But  this  is  not  the 
worst  of  the  case.  The  cause  of  Christ  has  been  greatly  injured  ; 
and  the  reputation  of  your  clergy  has  suffered  exceedingly.  I  state 
the  following  fact  with  extreme  reluctance  ;  but  I  utter  the  literal 
truth,  when  I  declare,  that  candid  men  have  lost  their  confidence  in 
the  moral  integrity  of  several  of  your  lay  and  clerical  leaders  ;  and 
that  the  following  ly-word  is  in  the  mouths  of  no  small  portion  of  the 
community  ;  "  Some  orthodox  ministers  will  lie."     Such  a  state  of 


96  LETTER  I. 

things  is  extremely  injurious  to  the  interests  of  our  common  faith  ;  and 
I  «lo  hope  my  labors  will  l)e  rewnrded  by  turning  the  attention  of  all 
concerned  to  this  most  important  topic. 

And,  secondly,  look  at  those  misrepresentations  which  relate  to  the 
progress  of  unitarian  sentiments.  Orthodox  leaders  in  this  region 
have  zealously  endeavoured  to  make  people  at  a  distance  believe,  that 
unitarianism  was  on  the  declin*;,  wiiile  orthodoxy  was  on  the  increase. 
One  most  deceptive  mode  of  leaving  surh  an  impression  has  been,  to 
boast  on  every  convenient  opportunity  of  the  number  of  new  churches 
lately  established  within  this  Commonwealth.  And  such  statements 
have  been  strengthened  by  the  circulation  of  such  misre})resentation8 
as  the  following.  It  has  been  reported,  that  one  and  another  unita- 
rian preacher  had  renounced  their  liberal  sentiments  and  embraced 
orthodox  views.  It  has  been  reported,  that  one  and  another  unitarian 
society  in  Boston  had  dwindled  away;  and  tliat  the  church  in  which 
Dr.  Channing  officiated  had  been  closed,  on  account  of  secessions  to 
the  orthodox.  Now  there  is  no  need  of  contradicting  such  statements 
in  this  vicinity,  for  we  are  assured  that  they  are  without  the  least 
foundation  in  truth. 

And,  Sir,  have  the  leading  orthodox  in  this  vicinity  really  believed 
such  representations  ?  Have  they  regarded  unitarianism  as  on  the 
decline  ?  Your  letter  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  as  to  your  own 
opinion.  But  if  any  have  credited  such  stories,  I  pity  their  credulity, 
and  rejoice  in  their  disappointment.  I  hope  no  one  has  engaged  in 
such  a  course,  to  influence  that  class  of  weak-minded  and  unstable 
Christians,  who  always  endeavour  to  side  with  the  majority,  and  meas- 
ure the  success  of  truth  by  numbers.  That  persons  at  a  distance  have 
been  deceived  by  such  published  and  unpublished  statements,  I  do 
positively  know.  Now  were  I  called  upon  to  distinguish  any  one  fact, 
which  indicated  the  progress  of  unitarian  sentiments,  I  should  mention 
the  recent  erection  of  so  many  little  orthodox  meeting-houses.  For  in 
the  first  place,  many  of  them  are  built  in  towns  which  were  once 
wholly  orthodox,  but  are  now  so  completely  unitarian,  that  not  one 
fifth,  tenth,  twentieth,  fiftieth,  or  even  a  hundredth  part  attend  ortho- 
dox preaching.  In  the  second  place,  several  of  the  new  houses  of 
worship  have  been  erected  in  places,  where  orthodox  ministers  have 
been  settled  to  this  very  time.  And  being  now  removed  from  their 
pastoral  connexion  either  by  death  or  dismission,  the  unitarian  majori- 
ties of  their  hearers  have  settled  ministers  of  their  own  sentiments. 
So  that  small  remnants  have  been  obliged  to  beg  funds  for  building 
another  church.  Something  like  eight  instances  of  this  character  have 
occurred  during  the  past  year;  and  there  are  more  than  eight  other 
societies  which  are  now  dissatisfied  with  the  exclusive  measures  of 
their  present  orthodox  pastors.  Besides  all  this,  it  is  well  known,  that 
unitarians  constitute  a  considerable  poj^tion  of  most  orthodox  societies 


LETTER  I.  97 

in  the  State ;  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  your  generosity  will  be 
heavily  taxed  for  years  to  come  for  the  erection  of  new  orthodox  meet- 
ino-houses,  which  may  be  pointed  out  as  the  standing  evidence  of  the 
progress  of  orthodoxy.  If  unitarians  were  to  adopt  a  similar  course  of 
proceeding',  how  many  churches,  as  large  and  respectable  as  those 
organized  by  the  orthodox,  do  you  suppose  they  might  establish  in  one 
year  ? 

And,  thirdly^  look  at  those  misrepresentations  which  relate  to  the 
belief  of  unitarians.  Orthodox  individuals  have  greatly  misrepresented 
our  peculiar  opinions  even  in  this  Commonwealth ;  but  the  farther  you 
remove  from  the  land  of  the  Pilgrims,  the  greater  the  misrepresen- 
tation of  ur^itarianism.  Gross  misstatemeuts  are  kept  in  circula- 
tion by  the  intelligent  and  influential ;  and  even  by  ministers  of  the 
gospel,  who  have  no  right  to  be  thus  ignorant  on  such  a  question.  Ask 
what  unitarians  believe  and  disbelieve,  and  you  will  hear  some  one  of 
the  following  answers.  They  believe  in  one  God,  but  they  deny  the 
Saviour;  they  deny  the  Scriptures;  they  deny  future  punishment; 
they  have  a  new  Bible  ;  they  require  nothing  but  a  moral  life ;  they 
expect  to  save  themselves  by  their  works.  Such  are  a  specimen  of  the 
untruths  in  circulation  among  the  orthodox  concerning  the  religious 
sentiments  of  unitarians. 

Now,  Sir,  I  wish  to  ask  one  or  two  questions.  Do  those  who  cir- 
culate such  misrepresentations  really  believe  them  to  be  very  truths  ? 
If  so,  I  pity  their  ignorance  ;  if  not,  I  tremble  for  their  wickedness.  I 
must  say,  that  some  instances  have  come  to  my  knowledge  which  indi- 
cate a  want  of  moral  principle.  I  would  not  be  uncharitable.  But  I 
cannot  resist  conclusive  evidence.  And  what  is  gained  to  your  party 
by  such  a  course  .^  Nothing  ;  but  very  much  will  be  eventually  lost. 
The  progress  of  unitarian  views  may  be  retarded  for  a  limited  period ; 
but  retarded  only  that  their  future  spread  may  be  more  rapid.  For 
when  that  large  class  of  professing  Christians,  who  have  taken  the 
Bible  as  the  standard  of  their  faith,  shall  discover  that  their  present 
sentiments  are  essentially  unitarian,  and  that  a  great  deception  has 
been  practised  in  relation  to  our  real  opinions,  you  may  be  assured 
that  a  powerful  and  extensive  reaction  will  take  place.  This  has 
already  been  the  case  in  repeated  instances.  Were  this  the  pro- 
per place,  I  could  relate  many  interesting  circumstances  of  this  char- 
acter which  occurred  under  my  own  observation  in  the  western  coun- 
try. If  unitarians  are  only  faithful  to  themselves  and  their  cause,  if 
they  will  proclaim  their  peculiar  opinions  with  plainness  and  freedom, 
they  will  inevitably  secure  an  abundant  increase  of  their  denomination. 
The  community  simply  need  information  concerning  our  real  belief, 
and  they  are  already  on  unitarian  ground. 

And,  fourthly,  look  at  the  misrepresentations  of  the  tendency  of  the 
unitarian  faith.  Many  orthodox  individuals  have  attempted  to  make 
13 


98  LETTER  I. 

the  less  informed  portion  of  the  community  believe  that  unitarianism  is 
an  unsafe  system.  Their  statement  is  frequently  worded  in  this  manner. 
If  orthodoxy  should  prove  false,  we  shall  all  be  still  safe  on  unitari'in 
ground  ;  but  if  unitarianism  should  prove  false,  none  but  the  orthodox 
are  on  a  sure  foundation.  Ortho«lo\y  therefore  whether  true  or  false  ^ 
is  an  infinitely  safer  system  than  unitarianism.  In  this  way  an  attempt 
is  made  to  increase  the  orthodox  numbers. 

Now,  Sir,  does  an  individual  of  ^ood  understanding  believe  this  state- 
ment .''  I  cannot  conceive  it  possible.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  very 
opposite  of  this  assertion  must  strike  even  a  child  as  the  literjd  truth. 
Just  bring  to  mind  one  or  two  articles  of  your  creed.  If  orthodoxy 
should  prove  true,  are  we  not  all  perfectly  safe  for  this  world  ?  Most 
assuredly.  For  here  is  the  Calvinistic  belief  on  this  point.  "Tiiat  by 
Adam's  fall  his  posterity  lost  their  free  iinll,  being  put  to  an  unavoidable 
necessity  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  tvhalsocver  they  do  or  do  not,  whether  it  be 
good  or  evil ;  being  thereunto  predestinated  by  the  eternal  and  effectual 
secret  decree  of  God."  This  is  plain  and  explicit.  We  are  under  an 
unavoidable  necessity  to  do  or  not  to  do,  what  we  actually  perform  or 
omit,  whether  good  or  bad.  We  have  no  power  then  to  do  any  thing 
different.  And  if  we  cannot  alter  any  thing,  why  should  we  trouble 
ourselves  about  our  opinions  or  actions  ?  Can  we  be  any  safer  for  this 
world  ?  And  is  not  the  same  thing  true  in  relation  to  eternity  ?  Cer- 
tainly. For  here  is  the  Calvinistic  belief  on  this  question.  "  By  the 
decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels 
are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  unto 
everlasting  death.  Those  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  fore- 
ordained, are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed  ;  and  their  num- 
ber is  so  certain  and  definite,  that  it  cannot  he  either  increased  or  dimin- 
uhed."  This  is  equally  plain  and  explicit.  The  number  of  those  who 
are  to  be  saved  or  damned  is  unalterably  fixed.  So  that  if  we  are  of 
the  elect,  we  shall  be  saved,  do  what  wo  may;  but  if  we  are  of  the 
reprobate,  we  must  be  danmed,  do  what  we  can.  No  exertions  on  our 
part  can  therefore  alter  our  destiny.  Is  it  not  then  as  clear  as  daylight, 
that  if  orthodoxy  prove  true,  every  soul  of  the  human  family  is  as  safe 
for  time  and  eternity  as  he  can  possibly  be ;  and  that  no  one  can  possi- 
bly do  any  thing  but  what  is  foreordained,  or  be  damned  if  he  has  been 
elected  to  salvation  ? 

But  perhaps  you  will  aver,  that  unitarians  are  not  of  the  nujnber  of 
the  elect.  Very  well.  This  thing  is  unalterably  fixed  by  the  Almigh- 
ty, f^nd  why  should  we  trouble  ourselves  about  what  we  cannot  alter 
or  amend  ?  But  on  your  own  ground,  I  know  not  but  we  are  as  sure 
of  being  the  elect  as  the  orthodox.  For  some  of  your  writers  have  de- 
clared that  the  Lord  selects  the  vilest  sinners  for  heaven  ;  and  you  have 
long  been  cndeavoaring  to  make  the  public  believe  that  unitarians 
were  among  the  most  vile.  But  admitting  that  we  are  of  the  number  of  the 


LETTER  I.  99 

non-elect,  who  has  commissioned  you  to  torment  us  before  our  time  ? 
And  if  every  thing  is  to  take  place  in  your  heaven  according  to  the  rep- 
resentations of  some  of  your  preachers,  I  am  not  sure  but  ours  will 
be  the  preferable  condition.  The  great  New  England  divine,  the 
late  Rev.  Dr.  Edwards  assures  us,  that  the  elect  are  to  have  thcnr  joys  in- 
creased by  witnessing  the  torments  of  the  damned.  But  let  us  have  his 
own  words.  "  The  sight  ofhdl  torments  will  exalt  the.  happiness  of  the 
saints  for  ever.  It  will  not  only  make  them  more  sensible  of  the  great- 
ness and  freeness  of  the  grace  of  God  in  their  happiness,  but  it  ivill 
really  make  their  happiness  the  greater.,  as  it  will  make  them  more  sensi- 
ble of  their  own  happiness.  It  loill  give  them  a  more  lively  relish  of  it  ; 
it  will  make  them  prize  it  the  more,  when  they  see  others  who  were 
of  the  same  nature,  and  born  under  the  same  circumstances,  plunged 
into  sHch  misery,  and  they  so  distinguished.  Oh  it  will  make  thera 
sensible  how  happy  they  are !  A  sense  of  the  opposite  misery,  in  all  cases, 
greatly  increases  the  relish  of  any  joy  or  pleasure."  This  is  likewise 
sufficiently  clear  and  intclligii)le.  Now,  Sir,  I  am  so  constituted,  that 
seemg  the  pains  even  of  an  animal  gives  me  very  unpleasant  feelings. 
I  cannot  witness  the  wretched  condition  of  a  drunken  beggar  at  my 
door  without  experiencing  considerable  suffering.  I  cannot  stand  be- 
side the  bed  of  a  diseased  and  distressed  friend  without  much  agitation 
and  great  misery.  And  if  I  must  become  so  completely  hardened,  as 
to  take  delight  in  observing  the  distress  even  of  the  vilest  sinners  ;  if  I 
must  become  so  thoroughly  brutalized,  as  to  exult  in  witnessing  the  ex- 
cruciating torments  of  my  acquaintances;  if  I  must  become  so  perfectly 
demonized,  as  to  have  my  joys  eternally  increased  by  beholding  the  ago- 
nizing writhings  of  my  friends,  in  the  ever  enduring,  and  unmitigated  tor- 
ments of  hell,  I  can  truly  say, — Good  Lord  deliver  me  from  such  a  heaven. 
But  this  is  not  the  worst  feature  in  the  orthodox  creed.  This  same 
divine  assures  us,  that  the  being  we  call  Father  will  be  the  eternal 
enemy  and  tormentor  of  his  own  children  without  any  fault  of  their  own. 
Let  us  have  bis  own  words.  "  The  wicked  in  hell  will  not  be  able  in 
that  conflict  to  overcome  their  enemy,  and  to  deliver  themselves.  God 
will  then  undertake  to  deal  with  them,  ivill  gird  himself  tvith  might  to 
execute  ivrath,  will  be  their  enemy,  and  ivill  act  the  part  of  an  enemy  ivith 
a  witness.  After  you  have  endured  these  torments  millions  of  ages,  you 
shall  know  that  you  are  not  one  whit  nearer  the  end  of  your  torments; 
but  that  still  there  are  the  same  groans,  the  same  shrieks,  the  same 
doleful  cries  incessantly  to  be  made  by  you,  and  that  the  smoke  of  your 
torment  shall  still  ascend  for  ever  and  ever  ;  and  that  your  souls  which 
have  been  agitated  by  the  wrath  of  God  all  this  while,  yet  will  still 
exist  to  bear  more  wrath  ;  your  bodies  ivkich  will  have  been  burning  and 
roasting  all  this  while  in  these  glowing  fames,  yet  shall  not  have  been  con- 
sumed, but  will  remain  to  roast  through  an  eternity  yet,  which  ivill  not 
have  been  at  all  shortened  by  what  has  been  pasty     The  Being  who  is 


100  LETTER  I. 

thus  to  torment  frail  human  beings  for  what  was  no  fault  of  their  own, 
you  would  have  us  call  by  the  name  of  Father.  Sir,  I  am  a  father.  I 
find  implanted  in  my  breast  feelings  of  unutterable  tenderness  and 
affection  towards  my  children.  I  would  no  more  do  tliem  an 
.injury,  than  I  would  cut  off  my  right  band.  I  would  no  more  expose 
them  to  unnecessary  suffering,  than  I  would  pluck  out  my  right  eye.  I 
cannot  see  them  endure  the  pains  of  sickness  without  great  anxiety  and 
affliction.  I  could  not  hold  even  the  linger  of  my  child  in  the  flames 
until  consumed,  without  experiencing  the  most  exquisite  agony.  I 
.could  not  hold  his  body  on  the  glowing  coals  one  hour,  without  losing 
the  use  of  my  reason.  And  with  such  a  nature,  can  I  love  a  Being 
who  brought  children  into  existence  without  their  consent,  and  for  no 
faultof  their  own  plunged  them  into  the  scalding,  suffocating  fire  of 
burning  brimstone,  and  watched  their  agonizing  torments,  not  for  one 
hour,  or  year,  or  age  ;  but  for  millions  of  ages  ;  millions  of  eternities.^ 
Can  I  wish  to  imitate  such  a  disposition  7  No.  If  Calvinism  be  true,  we 
are  all  as  safe  as  we  can  be;  and  nothing  can  be  lost  by  being 
excluded  from  such  a  Father  and  such  a  heaven.  But  if  unitarianism 
be  true,  the  case  is  entirely  reversed.  For  then  we  have  a  Father  in- 
deed, who  will  pt'rmit  us  to  enjoy  just  so  much  happiness  as  we  have 
moral  goodness,  and  to  suffer  just  so  much  misery  as  we  have  wicked- 
ness. Are  not  such  orthodox  misrepresentations  subversive  of  religious 
liberty,  free  inquiry,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism  ? 

I  have  room  for  no  more  facts  in  my  first  letter.  I  did  intend  to 
notice  the  measures  of  some  of  your  Societies,  and  to  give  some  ac- 
count of  the  immense  funds  of  your  denomination,  the  means  employed 
for  their  increase,  and  the  sectarian  character  of  many  important  pro- 
ceedings. But  I  have  already  far  exceeded  the  limits  of  my  original 
intention.  I  have  therefore  only  to  ask  you  and  the  public,  whether  the 
six  classes  of  facts  which  I  have  produced,  do  not  perfectly  demonstrate 
the  following  proposition.  The  measures,  aUtmpted  and  adopted  by  the 
leaders  of  the  orthodox  denomination  in  our  country  for  the  preservation  and 
propagation  of  their  peculiar  views  of  religion^  are  subversive  of  free  tn- 
quiryj  religious  liberty^  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism, 


LETTER   II. 


Reverend  Sir, 

I  now  proceed  to  notice  some  of  the  assertions,  insinuations,  and 
iiccusations  contained  in  your  Letter  on  Religious  Liberty.  As  your 
friends  have  repeatedl}'^  advanced  the  same  and  similar  opinions,  I 
shall  occasionally  allude  to  their  statements  and  publications.  I  think 
that  the  facts  I  shall  now  adduce,  and  the  arguments  I  shall 
advance,   will    prove   two    propositions.     Fii'st,  that  many  of  your 

REMARKS,  DECLARATIONS,  AND  DENUNCIATIONS  ARE  UNFOUNDED,  UN- 
RIGHTEOUS, AND  UNGENEROUS.     And,  secondly^  that  the  measures 

ATTEMPTED  AND  ADOPTED  BY  THE  LEADERS  OF  THE  ORTHODOX  DE- 
NOMINATION IN  OUR  COUNTRY,  FOR  THE  PRESERVATION  AND  PROPA- 
GATION OF  THEIR  PECULIAR  VIEWS  OF  RELIGION,  ARE  SUBVERSIVE 
OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY,  FREE  INQUIRY,  AND  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  CON- 
GREGATIONALISM. To  this  class  of  subjects  I  now  solicit  your  attentioD. 

L  Principles  and  Doctrines  or  the  Reformers. 

Many  individuals  of  your  denomination  have  attempted  to  make  the 
unlearned  part  of  the  community  believe  these  three  statements  re- 
specting tl)e  Reformation :  Firsts  that  the  Reformers  were  very  gen- 
erally agreed  in  certain  grand  doctrines  of  revealed  reli»j:ion.  Secondly, 
that  the  orthodox  of  the  present  day  substantially  adhere  to  these 
fundamental  articles  of  the  Reformers.  And,  thirdly,  that  unitarians 
have  departed  widely  and  totally  from  the  great  principles  of  the 
Reformation.  I  perceive  you  have  advanced  similar  sentiments,  and 
attempted  to  leave  similar  impressions  on  the  minds  of  your  readers. 
In  support  of  this  assertion,  I  will  quote  merely  two  passages  from 
your  Letter.  In  the  first  place,  you  make  this  strong  declaration. 
"  In  heart  and  soul  we  agree  with  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Reformers, 
of  Calvin  and  Luther.''^  Is  not  this  remark  calculated  to  make  people 
believe  that  Calvin  and  Luther  were  agreed  in  certain  great  doc- 
trines ?  —  that  these  were  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation  ?  —  and 
that  they  are  still  firmly  believed  by  the  orthodox  denomination  ?  In 
the  second  place,  you  aver  that  the  orthodox  "  choose  to  walkj  and 


102  LETTER  II. 

insist  on  walking,  in  the  old  paths  of  the  Reformers.^*  Was  not  this 
sentence  intended  to  leave  the  impression,  that  unitarians  persecute 
the  orthodox  l>ecause  the*^^  adhere  so  tenaciously  to  the  grand  princi- 
ples of  the  Reformation.  Unitarians  are  so  often  accused  of  having 
departed  from  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Reformers,  that  it  is  quite 
unnecessary  to  quote  any  passage  in  proof  of  the  charge.  Now,  Sir, 
are  these  three  propositions  true  .^  Can  they  be  substantiated  by  any 
proper  evidence  ?  I  think  not.  I  will  produce  the  reasons  for  my 
opinion.  And  I  believe  that  the  facts  I  shall  here  adduce  will  prove  at 
least  six  particulars. 

1.  Reformers.  In  the  first  place,  then,  who  are  to  be  regarded  as 
the  principal  Reformers  ?  The  frst  in  thfi  order  of  time  was  Martin 
Luther.  He  was  born  in  Germany,  in  the  year  1483.  He  received  a 
classical  education  in  the  University  of  Erfurt.  He  was  distinguished 
fur  good  natural  endowments,  close  application,  and  extensive  acquire- 
ments. He  intended  to  study  law ;  but  the  sudden  death  of  a  friend 
by  lightning  induced  hiin  to  enter  a  convent  of  Augustine  friars.  In 
1.107,  he  was  admitted  to  the  order  of  priests.  The  next  year  he 
was  appointed  Professor  of  Philosopliy  in  the  University  of  Witten- 
berg ;  and  afterwards  he  received  the  appointment  of  Professor  of 
Divinity  in  the  same  Institution.  He  performed  the  duties  of  his  sta- 
tion with  great  fidelity  and  success.  Soon  after  this  period,  he  became 
convinced  that  certain  abuses  in  the  Catholic  church,  of  which  he  was 
a  most  zealous  member,  gret.tly  needed  reformation.  Without  any 
intention  or  desire  of  leaving  her  communion,  he  boldly  commenced 
his  attacks  upon  her  existing  and  glaring  corruptions.  Not  long  after, 
he  was  excommunicated  from  her  fellowship,  by  the  Pope,  as  an  obsti- 
nate heretic.  Tliis  act  only  served  to  animate  him  in  accomplishing 
hie  good  undertaking  of  delivering  religion  from  human  traditions.  He 
was  well  qualified  for  a  leader  in  this  glorious  work,  being  fearless,  learn- 
ed, and  persevering  ;  and,  for  the  times,  virtuous  and  pious.  There 
were  indeed  many  and  great  defects  and  blemishes  in  his  temper  and 
character  ;  but  such  only  as  were  too  common  in  that  period  of  com- 
parative darkness  and  ignorance.  He  published  many  works  in  Latin 
and  German.  He  framed  a  system  of  ecclesiastical  government  and 
theological  doctrines  ;  and  a  large  body  was  then  organized  as  his  dis- 
ciples, and  to  this  day  their  descendants  retain  the  name  of  Lutherans. 

The  second  Reformer  in  the  order  of  time  was  Philip  Melancthon. 
He  was  also  born  in  Germany,  in  the  year  1495.  He  completed  a  clas- 
sical education  at  Heidelberg.  He  was  distinguished  for  supeiior 
talents,  unwearied  diligence,  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  ancient 
languages,  and  a  beautiful  classical  'style  of  composition.  In  1518  he 
was  appointed  Professor  of  Greek  at  Wittenberg,  where  Lutiier  was 
lecturing  on  theology.  They  soon  became  intimate  friends  ;  and  Lu- 
ther had  the  satisfaction  of  convincing  him  of  the  necessity  of  going 


LETTER  II.  103 

forwafd  in  the  work  of  reformation.  He  was,  indeed,  well  calculated 
to  aid  Luther  on  arcount  of  his  accurate  scholarshp,  and  his  elegant 
style  of  writing.  He  was,  therefore,  chosen  to  draw  up  the  famous 
"  Au<rsburg  ("onfession,"  which  contains  the  creed  of  the  Lutheran 
church.  In  some  points  of  doctrine  he  agreed  with  Luther  ;  and  was 
satisfied  in  assisting  his  exertions,  rather  than  desirous  of  advancing 
another  system  of  his  own,  and  organizing  a  new  denomination.  He 
was  too  amiahle,  too  mild,  too  retiring,  too  moderate,  too  fearful  for  a 
leader  in  that  dark  and  stormy  period  of  the  church.  For  the  times,  he 
was  a  man  of  superior  learning,  goodness,  and  -piety.  One  of  his  bio- 
graphers speaks  of  him  in  the  following  terms.  "  Nature  had  given 
AJelancthon  a  peaceahle  temper,  which  was  but  ill  suited  to  the  times 
in  which  he  lived.  His  moderation  served  only  to  be  his  cross.  He 
w:is  like  a  lamb  in  the  midst  of  wolves.  Nobody  liked  his  mildness  ; 
it  looked  as  if  he  were  lukewarm."  He  published  a  large  number  of 
works  in  Latin  and  German. 

The  third  in  the  order  of  time,  though  perhaps  the  first  in  reality  and 
importance,  was  Ulrick  Zuingle.  He  was  born  in  Switzerland,  in  the 
year  1487.  At  the  age  of  eighteen  he  received  the  degree  of  Doctor 
of  Divinity  at  Basil-  He  was  soon  known  as  one  of  the  most  popular 
preachers  of  the  age.  He  was  convinced  from  his  own  observation, 
and  from  his  examination  of  the  Scriptures,  that  a  reformation  was 
needed  in  the  Catholic  church.  He  had  actually  begun  the  good 
work  in  a  gentle  manner,  before  he  became  acquainted  with  the  exer- 
tions and  writings  of  Luther.  He  was  encouraged  to  press  forward  by 
tlie  proceedings  in  Germany,  and  his  exertions  were  crowned  with 
great  and  wonderful  success.  A  war,  however,  soon  broke  out  be- 
tween the  Catholics  and  Protestants.  Zuingle  went  with  his  parish- 
ioners into  the  midst  of  the  conflict.  In  the  beginning  of  the  battle, 
he  received  a  mortal  wound,  while  animating  the  troops  by  his  exhor- 
tations. Some  Catholic  soldiers  soon  discovered  him,  pierced  his  body 
through  with  a  sword,  and  burned  it  to  ashes.  He  was  as  great  a  man 
as  Luther ;  and  exhibited  more  of  the  Christian  virtues.  In  his  reli- 
gious opinions,  he  differed  very  materially  from  the  two  before  him, 
and  the  two  who  came  next  af\er  him.  His  views  were  exceedingly 
libera],  not  differing  essentially,  except  in  one  or  two  points,  from  the 
liberal  Christians  of  the  present  period.  "  As  to  original  sin,  he  con- 
sidered it  as  a  disposition  to  do  ill,  not  as  actual  sin  ;  but  he  did  not 
think  it  could  bring  on  man  eternal  damnation  He  rejected  the  Calvin- 
istic  notion  of  divine  decrees.  He  believed  that  salvation  would  be  ex- 
tended not  only  to  unbaptized  infants,  but  also  to  heathens  of  a  virtu- 
ous character."  He  was  undoubtedly  the  best,  the  most  Christian, 
of  all  of  the  Reformers.  He  published  many  works,  mostly  in  the 
German  language. 


104  LETTER  II. 

The  fourth  in  point  of  time  was  John  Calvin.  He  was  born  in 
France,  in  the  yoar  1509.  He  was  originally  designed  for  a  Catholic 
priest;  but  for  a  time  he  gave  his  attention  to  the  study  of  the  civil 
lav/.  He  etirly  becauie  a  convert  to  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  ; 
and  published  his  "Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion  "  at  a  very  early 
period  of  his  labors.  In  1536,  he  was  chosen  preacher  and  Professor 
of  Divinity  at  Geneva.  With  the  exception  of  a  short  banishment,  he 
continued  in  these  offices  during  the  remainder  of  his  life.  He  has 
been  accused  of  many  failings  ;  among  others,  his  excessive  ambition, 
his  tyrannical  disposition,  his  arbitrary  exercise  of  power,  and  his  un- 
christian cruelty.  It  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  he  persecuted  those 
who  would  not  conform  to  his  standard  of  belief  on  doctrinal  and 
ecclesiastical  questions.  He  caused  Jerome  Bolsec,  a  French  physi- 
cian, to  be  bani«hed  for  his  heretical  opinions.  He  served  George 
Blandrata,  an  Italian  physician,  who  denied  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity,  in  a  similar  manner.  His  treatment  of  Sebastian  Castalio, 
his  friend  and  regent  of  the  College,  a  great,  learned,  and  good 
man,  was  much  more  severe  and  unchristian.  And  hiu  causing  the 
death  of  Michael  Servetus  has  loft  an  indelible  stain  of  disgrace 
on  his  character.  The  only  apology  for  all  these  unchristian  perse- 
cutions is  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  that  period.  Calvin  himself 
published  a  work  to  prove  that  it  was  lawful  to  destroy  heretics ;  that 
is,  those  who  differed  from  his  interpretations  of  Scripture.  He  was  a 
man  of  uncommon  mental  powers,  of  extensive  acquirements,  and 
respectable  piety  for  the  times  in  which  he  lived.  His  system  of 
church  government,  and  his  views  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  differed  mate- 
rially from  those  of  Luther.  On  many  other  points  he  differed  not 
only  from  Luther,  but  most  essentially  from  the  other  Reformers.  He 
established  a  system  of  faith  peculiar  to  himself;  and  his  followers 
from  that  time  to  the  present  have  been  called  Calvinists. 

The  last  of  those,  who  deserve  a  place  among  the  principal  Reform- 
ers, was  Michael  Servetus.  He  was  born  in  Spain,  in  the  year  fifteen 
hundred  and  nine.  He  studied  law  three  years  in  his  native  land. 
Hearing  of  the  progress  of  the  Reformation  in  other  parts  of  Europe, 
he  devoted  his  time  and  attention  to  the  Scriptures.  Taking  these  for 
his  only  guide  of  faith,  and  having  at  this  time  no  connexion  with  the 
other  Reformers,  he  immediately  renounced,  among  other  Catholic  ab- 
aurdities,  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  He  then  wrote  a  work  on  the 
Error  of  the  Trinity,  in  seven  books.  As  it  could  not  be  published  in 
Spain  without  exposing  his  life,  he  went  to  Germany  where  more  lib- 
erty was  enjoyed,  and  there  gave  it  to  the  world  with  his  own  name  at- 
tached. He  probably  thought  that  this  error  would  be  one  of  the  first 
to  be  rejected  by  those  who  took  the  Bible  as  their  only  standard  of  re- 
ligious truth.  He  was  sadly  mistaken  in  this  supposition.  The  publi- 
cation produced  a  great  sensation  among  all  classes  of  the  community, 


LETTER  II.  105 

and  was  of  course  condemned  by  most  of  the  leaders  in  the  Reforma- 
tion. Next  year  he  published  two  dialogues  to  explain  and  defend  his 
views  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity.  Soon  after  this,  he  repaired  to 
Paris,  and  pursued  the  study  of  medicine.  Having  obtained  a  medical 
deg^ree,  he  commenced  the  practice  of  tlie  profession  in  that  city  and 
also  engaged  in  lecturing  on  Geography  and  Mathematics.  All  this 
time  he  was  in  constant  correspondence  with  Calvin.  He  spoke  to 
him  with  all  that  unreserved  freedom  which  is  manifested  by  one  devo- 
ted friend  towards  another.  These  familiar  and  confidential  letters  were 
afterwards  used  by  Calvin  to  destroy  his  correspondent.  In  fifteen  hun- 
dred and  fifty-three,  he  published  a  large  work  without  his  name,  en- 
titled "  The  Restoration  of  Christianity."  In  this  book,  he  not  only  pur- 
sues his  attack  on  the  trinity,  but  inveighs  severely  against  other  Cath- 
olic absurdities.  The  Catholics,  having  authority  then  in  France,  en- 
deavoured to  discover  the  author,  that  they  might  bring  him  to  punish- 
ment. It  has  been  proved  to  my  satisfaction,  that  Calvin  was  so  base 
as  to  give  them  information,  and  to  send  something  like  twenty  of  the 
Latin  letters  of  Servetus,  which  might  be  used  in  his  trial.  He  was 
accordingly  seized  and  imprisoned  ;  but  soon  after  made  his  escape, 
and  started  for  Switzerland.  On  his  way  he  passed  through  Ge- 
neva, where  Calvin  reigned.  He  went  in  disguise,  and  did  not  mean 
to  be  known  in  the  city.  But  Calvin  discovered  the  fact  on  his  first 
entrance  into  the  place,  and  immediately  gave  information  to  the  magis- 
trates, who  placed  him  in  prison.  After  suffering  various  and  most  in- 
human cruelties  in  his  confinement,  he  was  brought  to  trial,  which  last- 
ed for  a  long  period.  A  servant  of  Calvin  was  his  accuser.  A  manu- 
script, which  he  had  put  into  the  hands  of  Calvin  some  years  before 
for  his  friendly  criticisms,  was  produced  on  his  trial.  He  was  finally 
condemned  to  be  burnt  alive  in  a  slow  fire  of  green  wood.  And  we 
are  informed  that  his  sufferings  were  excruciating  beyond  description, 
and  lasted  more  than  two  hours.  From  all  accounts,  it  appears  that  Ser- 
vetus was  as  learned,  as  accomplished,  as  zealous,  and  as  pious,  as  any 
of  the  other  Reformers.  His  system  of  belief  differed  from  those  of  the 
others  ;  and  those,  who  adhered  to  his  denial  of  the  trinity,  were  called 
Servetists.  Some  of  them  were  murdered  for  their  heretical  opin- 
ions ;  and  so  great  was  the  persecution  of  unitarians,  that  the  sect  was  but 
small  for  many  years  But  had  Servetus  possessed  as  much  power  as 
Calvin,  I  have  no  doubt  but  the  prevailing  system  of  behef  in  the  re- 
formed churches,  would  then  and  now  have  been  unitarianisra. 

As  some  persons  may  wish  to  know  precisely  what  hand  Calvin  had 
in  the  burning  of  Servetus,  I  will  give  a  few  extracts  from  his  own 
writings.  My  first  quotation  will  show  that  Calvin  had  determined  in 
his  own  mind  to  bring  Servetus  to  death  for  his  heretical  opinions. 
Here  are  the  words :  "  Servetus  has  lately  written  to  me,  and  sent 
me  at  the  same  time  a  large  book  stuffed  with  idle  fancies,  and  full  ot 
14 


106  LETTER  II. 

arrogance.  He  says  I  shall  find  in  it  admirable  things,  and  such  as  have 
been  unheard  of  hitherto.    He  offers  to  come  here  if  I  like  it;  but  I 
will  not  engag^o  my  word.     For  if  he  comes,  and  if»n}j  re'rard  be  had  to 
my  authoritij,  J  shall  not  suffer  him  to  escape  without  losin<r  his  life.''  —  My 
next  quotation  will  prove  that  Calvin  caused  the  imprisonment  and  pros- 
ecution of  Servetus.      Here  are  the  words  of  Calvin  himself:   **  I  do 
not  pretend  to  deny  that  I  was  the  cause  of  his  being  apprehended  in 
this   city,   that  he  might  be  put  upon  his   trial.      Let  men  of  impious 
minds,  and  malignant  tongues,  exclaim  against  me  ever  so    much,  I 
frankly  own  and  openly  profess,  that  it  tvas  by  my  exertions  the  jdainlijff" 
appeared  ap;ainst  him  ;  nor  do  I  deny  that  the  form  of  his  indictment  was 
dratvn  up  by  my  advice.     JVcither  do  I  pretend  but  that  I  really  thought  it 
my  duty  to  do  all  that  liy  in  my  power  to  crush  such  an  obstinate  and  ir- 
reclaimable  fellow,  that  the  contagion  might  spread  no  farther."  —  My  next 
extract  will  prove  that  Calvin  wished  Servetus  con<lemned  to  death. 
It  is  from  a  letter  written  during  the  trial.     Here  are  the  very  words  of 
Calvin :    "  We  are  now  engaged  with  Servetus.     Perhaps  he  only  de- 
signed to  go  through  this  city  ;  for  we  do  not  yet  know  what  reason 
moved  him  to  come  hither.     lie  has  been  discovered,  an«l  I  have  been 
of  the  opinion  that  he  should  be  arrested.     /  hope  ht  will  he  condemned 
to  death ;  but  I  wish   the  severity  of  his  punishment  may  he   softened. 
Spero  capitate  saltern  fore  judicium  ;  pajice  vero  atrocitatem.  remilti  cu- 
pio."     From  this  latter  clause,  some  have  supposed  that  Calvin  wished 
a  punishment  less  severe  than  death  might  be  inflicted  on   Servetus. 
But  this  is  altogether  a  mistake.      He  merely  wished  that    Servetus 
might  be  put  to  death  in  some  easier  mode,  than  by  burning  in  a  slow 
fire  of  green  wood.     This  is  fully  and  clearly  proved  by  another  passage 
written  after  the  sentence  of  death  had  been  pronounced.   These  are  the 
words  of  Calvin  :    "  Nevertheless  he  has  been  condemned  without  any 
dispute.     He  will  be  executed  to-morrow.     We  have  endeavoured  to 
change   that  kind  of  death ;   but  in  vain.     Genus  mortis  conati  sumus 
mutare ;  sed  frustra."     This  must  be  satisfactory  to  all.     I  think  any 
one  who  will  investigate  this  subject  properly  must  come  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  Culvin  was  the  sole  cause  of  the  imprisonment  of  Serve- 
tus ;  that  the  plaintiff  appeared  at  his  request  ;  that  the  indictment  was 
drawn  up  by  his  advice  ;  that  he  furnished  the  evidence  of  his  heresy ; 
that  he  did  all  in  his  power  to  have  him  sentenced  to  death ;  and  that 
he  merely  petitioned  the  magistrates  to  have  one  kind  of  death  ex- 
changed for  another  more  sudden  and  less  excruciating.    And  when  I 
hear  men  of  education  deny  tliese  facts,  I  am  truly  astonished  ;   for  I 
know  not  whether  to  attribute  such  denial  to  ignorance  or  depravity. 
Such  then  is  a  very  brief  and  imperfect  notice  of  the  principal  Reform- 
ers. This  sketch  seemed  necessary  to  render  my  following  remarks  fully 
intelligible  to  tlie  unlearned  reader. 


LETTER  II.  107 

2.  Principles  of  the  Reformation.  In  the  second  place,  what  are  the 
grand  principles  of  the  Reformation  ?  They  are  the  fundamental  points 
of  difference  between  the  Catholics  and  Reformers.  They  are  the 
very  pillars  of  Protestantism.  They  are  those  self-evident  truths  in 
which  the  Reformers  were  fully  agreed  in  theory.  They  are  but  two 
in  number.  What  then  is  the  frst,  great,  essential  principle  of  the 
Reformation?  I  cannot  express  it  better  than  in  your  own  words. 
"The  Scriptures  are  the  sufficient  a>'d  only  rule  of  faith 
AND  PRACTICE."  Now  wliich  denomination  adheres  most  firmly  to  this 
grand  pillar  of  Protestantism  ?     Let  facts  decide. 

Does  the  orthodox  denomination  make  the  Scriptures  the  sufficieitt 
and  ONLY  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  Let  us  descend  to  particulars. 
When  you  induct  a  Professor  into  his  responsible  office  in  your  theo- 
logical seminaries,  do  you  make  the  Scriptures  the  sufficient  and  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  No.  Look  at  Andover  and  Princeton. 
Let  the  Professor  elect  adhere  to  the  Scriptures  ever  so  firmly,  still 
you  will  not  permit  him  to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  the  station,  unless 
he  will  first  profess  his  hearty  belief  in  all  the  articles  of  a  long  human 
creed,  and  his  solemn  determination  to  teach  his  pupils  no  opinions 
contrary  to  its  published  statements.  And  unless  he  will  renew  his 
sacred  obligations  every  five  years,  he  must  be  excluded  from  the  insti- 
tution, and  followed  into  the  world  by  the  reproaches  and  persecutions 
of  the  leaders  of  your  party,  although  he  still  retains  his  Christian  char- 
acter and  his  firm  adherence  to  the  Scriptures.  When  you  admit  a 
believer  to  the  ordinances  of  Christian  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
do  you  make  the  Scriptures  the  sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice ?  No.  Look  at  the  terms  of  admission  and  excommunication  in 
orthodox  churches.  Let  the  candidate  for  membership  adhere  to-  the 
Scriptures  ever  so  firmly,  still  you  will  not  admit  him  to  your  commun- 
ion, unless  he  will  first  profess  his  hearty  belief  in  all  the  articles  of  a 
long  human  creed.  And  should  a  prayerful  perusal  of  the  sacred 
writings  lead  him  to  reject  any  of  its  statements,  you  will  neither 
give  him  a  dismission  from  your  body  nor  a  recommendation  to  a  more 
liberal  church,  but  proceed  to  excommunicate  him  for  heresy,  although 
he  still  retains  his  Christian  character,  and  his  firm  adherence  to  the 
Scriptures.  When  you  determine  the  principles  of  ministerial  inter- 
course, do  you  make  the  Scriptures  the  sifficient  and  only  rule  of  faitli 
and  practice  ?  No.  Look  at  the  proceedings  in  Baltimore  and 
especially  in  Massachusetts.  Let  the  minister  be  orthodox  in  sentiment 
and  adhere  to  the  Scriptures  ever  so  firmly,  still  you  will  not  welcome 
him  to  pulpit  exchanges,  unless  he  will  subscribe  to  the  articles  of  a 
long  human  creed.  And  if  he  should  either  deny  the  utility  of  human 
creeds,  or  refuse  to  enter  the  exclusive  system,  he  is  shut  out  from 
your  society  and  sympathy,  and  either  his  pulpit  declared  vacated,  or 
unhallowed  exertions  are  used  to  rendeT  his  church  vacant,  although  he 


108  LETTER  II. 

still  retains  his  ministerial  character,  his  orthodoxy,  and  his  firm  ad- 
herence to  the  Scriptures.  When  you  settle  the  terms  on  which  the 
proprietors  in  your  meeting-houses  may  vote  for  their  own  ministers,  do 
you  make  the  Scriptures  the  sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice ?  No.  Look  at  those  churches  which  you  have  lately  endeavoured 
to  chain  down  to  orthodoxy  with  the  everlasting  fetters  of  trust-deeds. 
Let  the  owners  of  the  house  adhere  to  the  Scriptures  ever  so  firmly, 
still  you  will  not  allow  them  to  vote  for  the  pastor  they  must  maintain, 
unless  they  will  first  profess  their  hearty  belief  in  all  the  articles  of  a 
long  human  creed.  And  if  a  prayerful  perusal  of  the  Bible  should 
compel  them  to  dissent  from  the  declarations  of  this  human  standard, 
they  must  forfeit  their  right  of  voting  for  their  own  preacher,  and  look 
to  their  wiser  neighbours  to  place  one  over  them,  although  they  still 
retain  their  Christian  character  and  their  firm  adherence  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. Many  more  instances  of  a  similar  character  might  be  men- 
tioned ;  but  these  are  sufficient  to  convince  the  public,  that  the  first^ 
great,  fundamental  principle  of  the  Reformation,  is  palpably,  and  habitu- 
ally, and  systematically  violated  by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  denomi- 
nation. 

On  the  other  hand,  does  the  unitarian  denomination  make  the  Scrip- 
tures tlie  SUFFICIENT  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice?  Let  us 
refer  to  the  same  class  of  particulars.  When  they  induct  a  Professor 
into  his  responsible  office  in  their  theological  seminaries,  do  they  make 
the  Scriptures  their  sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  .'  Yes. 
Look  at  the  Divinity  School  at  Cambridge.  The  Professor  elect  is  re- 
quired only  to  profess  his  firm  belief  in  the  Scriptures,  his  determina- 
tion to  study  them  with  prayerful  attention,  and  his  desire  to  communi- 
cate'to  his  pupils  the  result  of  his  honest  investigations.  And  should 
his  persevering  inquiries  into  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  writers  render 
him  wiser  next  year  than  tliis,  still  his  increase  in  religious  knowledge 
will  not  subject  him  to  the  loss  of  his  situation,  or  to  the  blighting 
suspicions  and  cruel  insinuations  of  his  whole  denomination,  so  long  as 
he  adheres  scrupulously  to  the  only  infallible  standard  of  divine  truth. 
When  they  admit  a  believer  to  the  ordinances  of  Christian  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper,  do  they  make  the  Scriptures  tlieir  sufficient  and  only 
guide  of  faith  and  practice?  Yes.  Look  at  the  terms  of  admission 
and  excommunication  in  tlieir  churches.  The  candidate  for  member- 
ship is  required  only  to  profess  his  firm  belief  in  tlie  Scriptures,  his 
determination  to  search  them  with  candor  and  prayerfulness,  and  his 
intention  to  make  them  his  sole  standard  of  divine  truth.  And  should 
any  circumstance  cause  him  to  change  his  religious  opinions,  he 
will  be  neither  excommunicated  nor  persecuted,  but  may  receive 
a  dismission,  and  a  recommendation  to  another  church,  so  long  as  he 
retains  his  Christian  character  and  his  firm  adherence  to  the  Scriptures. 
When  they  determine  the  principles  of  their  ministerial  intercourse,  do 


LETTER  II.  109 

they  make  the  Scriptures  the  sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice ?  Yes.  Look  at  their  system  of  pulpit  exchanges.  If  a  minister 
sustains  a  fair  reputation,  and  endeavours  to  make  the  Scriptures  his 
standard  of  divine  truth,  and  is  acceptable  to  their  hearers,  and  observes 
the  golden  rule  when  preaching  and  praying  in  their  pulpits,  they  will 
welcome  him  to  ministerial  intercourse.  And  should  he  believe  a  little 
more  or  a  little  less  than  they  do  themselves,  still  they  will  not  exclude 
him  from  their  fellowship,  so  long  as  he  keeps  his  peculiarities  to  him- 
self when  addressing  their  parishioners,  and  r.^itains  his  ministerial 
character  and  firm  adherence  to  the  sacred  Scriptures.  When  they 
settle  the  terms  on  which  the  proprietors  of  their  meeting-houses  may 
vote  for  their  own  ministers,  do  they  make  the  Scriptures  the  sufficient 
and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  Yes.  Look  at  the  uniform  practice 
of  their  congregations.  If  a  person  owns  a  seat  in  their  houses  of 
public  worship,  he  is  entitled  to  vote  in  the  choice  of  a  pastor  whom 
he  must  aid  in  supporting.  And  this  right  can  never  be  legally 
taken  from  him,  neither  will  he  surrender  it,  so  long  as  he  preserves  any 
self-respect,  or  any  proper  estimate  of  the  value  of  Christian  institutions. 
Do  not  these  and  similar  facts  fully  prove,  that  the  unitarian  denomina- 
tion adheres  most  firmly  to  the  first  great  principle  of  the  Reformation  ? 
Will  you  say  that  they  pervert  those  very  Scriptures  which  they  pretend 
to  make  their  standard  of  truth  and  duty  ?  Remember  that  they  have 
the  same  right  to  bring  this  charge  against  your  party,  that  you  have  to 
cast  it  upon  theirs  ;  and  be  assured,  that  they  can  do  it  with  equal  rea- 
son, sincerity,  and  truth.  For  they  really  feel  as  confident  that  you  are 
the  very  persons  who  depart  from  the  plain  teachings  of  revelation,  as 
you  can  possibly  be,  that  they  are  the  perverters  of  inspired  truth.  So 
that  this  accusation  will  not  relieve  you  from  the  conclusion  to  which 
facts  have  brought  us.  Must  you  not  then  admit,  that  while  unitari- 
ans adhere  scrupulously  to  the  first  principle  of  the  Reformation,  the 
orthodox  depart  from  it  most  vvridely  in  all  important  particulars  ?  I  see 
not  how  you  or  any  one  can  possibly  avoid  this  result  of  our  statements. 
And  what  is  the  second  grand  principle  of  the  Reformation  ?  I  can- 
not better  express  it  than  in  the  words  of  another.     "  All  men  have 

AX  EQUAL    RIGHT    TO    STUDY    AND    UNDERSTAND    THE    ScRlPTURES   FOR 

THEMSELVES."  Were  the  Reformers  agreed  in  this  principle  ?  In  words 
they  were.  What  is  the  declaration  of  Luther  ?  "  We  have  not  re- 
ceived any  authority  or  power  to  compel  belief  If  you  are  willing  to 
believe,  yours  will  be  the  benefit ;  if  you  refuse  to  believe,  the  choice  is 
free  to  you,  and  yours  alone  is  the  responsibility.  We  do  not  unsheathe 
the  sword,  neither  do  we  resort  to  force.  Words  and  arguments  are 
the  only  weapons  of  our  warfare."  This  looks  well  on  paper.  And 
what  was  the  assertion  of  Calvin  ?  "  Now  since  the  consciences  of  the 
faithful,  being  privileged  with  the  liberty  which  we  have  described,  have 
been  delivered  by  the  favor  of  Christ  from  all  necessary  obligation  to 


]  10  LETTER  II. 

the  observance  of  those  things,  in  which  the  Lord  hath  been  pleased 
they  should  be  kept  free,  we  conclude  they  are  exempt  from  all  human 
authority^  To  say  that  Calvin  openly  violated  this  remark  both  in  word 
and  deed,  is  to  publisli  the  literal  truth.  Now  wliich  denomination 
adheres  most  firmly  to  tliis  second  pillar  of  Protestantism  ?  Let  facts 
decide. 

Does  the  orthodox  denomination  allow  all  men  an  equal  right  to 
study  and  understand  the  Scriptures  for  themselves  ?  Let  us  descend 
to  particulars.  When  those  learned,  virtuous,  and  pious  ministers  in 
Connecticut  were  obliged  by  a  prayerful  study  of  the  Scriptures  to 
renounce  certain  articles  of  a  human  creed,  why  did  their  orthodox 
brethren  form  themselves  into  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal ;  summon  these 
peaceable,  faithful,  and  beloved  pastors  before  them  to  answer  to  the 
<jharge  of  heresy ;  proclaim  to  the  world  that  they  had  renounced  the 
Scriptures,  denied  the  Messiah,  made  shipwreck  of  the  Christian  faith, 
and  disqualified  themselves  for  the  gospel  .ministry  ;  and  then  dissolve 
their  ministerial  relation  with  their  several  congregations  ?  Was  this 
granting  them  an  equal  right  to  study  and  understand  the  Scriptures  for 
themselves.^  No;  and  had  they  been  tlie  majority,  would  they  not 
have  possessed  an  equal  right,  and  as  much  reason,  to  call  the  self- 
styled  orthodox  preachers  to  account,  and  punish  them  for  the  same 
crimes  in  a  similar  manner?  But  had  they  so  conducted,  would  you 
not  have  charged  them  with  infringing  the  rights  of  private  judg- 
jnent  ?  —  When  those  learned,  virtuous,  and  pious  divines  in  this  Com- 
monwealth and  in  New  Hampshire  were  obliged  by  a  prayerful  study 
of  the  Scriptures  to  renounce  certain  articles  of  a  human  creed,  why 
did  their  orthodox  brethren  form  themselves  into  ecclesiastical  courts  ; 
exclude  them  from  their  councils  and  associations  ;  condemn  their  pub- 
lications as  false  and  heretical ;  and  hold  them  up  in  tlie  public  prints 
as  objects  of  fear  and  persecution  ?  Was  tliis  granting  them  an  eqvM 
right  to  study  and  understand  the  Scriptures  for  themselves  ?  No ; 
and  had  they  been  the  majority,  would  they  not  have  possessed  an 
equal  right,  and  as  much  reason,  to  call  the  self-styled  orthodox 
preachers  to  account,  and  to  punish  them  for  the  same  crimes  in  a 
similar  manner.^  But  had  they  so  conducted,  would  you  not  have 
charged  them  with  infringing  tlie  rights  of  private  judgment .''  — 
When  some  hundred  ministers  and  societies  in  Massachusetts  were 
obliged  by  a  prayerful  study  of  the  Scriptures  to  renounce  certain  arti- 
cles of  a  human  creed,  why  did  their  orthodox  brethren  pronounce  upon 
them  sentence  of  condemnation;  deny  them  the  Christian  name,  rights, 
and  privileges ;  call  them  emissaries  of  Satan,  Devils,  and  worse  than 
the  Devil;  and  consign  them  to  endless  torments  in  lu^ll  ?  Was  this 
granting  them  an  equal  riglit  to  study  and  understand  the  Scrip- 
tures for  themselves?  No;  and  had  they  been  the  majority,  would 
they  not  have  possessed  an  equal  right,  and  as  much  reason,  to  call 


LETTER  II.  Ill 

the  self-styled  orthodox  to  account,  and  punish  them  for  the  same 
crimes  in  a  similar  manner?  —  When  those  sincere,  virtuous,  and 
pious  disciples  in  many  of  your  churches  were  obliged  by  a  pray- 
erful study  of  the  Scriptures  to  renounce  certain  articles  of  a  human 
creed,  why  did  their  orthodox  brethren  call  them  to  account  for  their 
honest  opinions  ;  condemn  them  as  heretics ;  excommunicate  them  from 
their  fellowship  ;  and  send  them  forth  to  the  world  as  suspicious,  dan- 
gerous, polluting  characters  ?  Was  this  granting  them  an  equal  right 
to  study  and  understand  the  Scriptures  for  themselves  ?  No ;  and 
had  they  been  the  majority,  would  they  not  have  possessed  an  equal 
right,  and  as  much  reason,  to  condemn  the  self-styled  orthodox, 
and  to  punish  them  for  the  same  crimes  in  a  similar  manner? 
But  had  they  so  conducted,  would  you  not  have  charged  them  with 
infringing  the  rights  of  private  judgment?  More  instances  might  be 
mentioned  ;  but  these  are  sufficient  to  convince  the  public,  that  the 
second  principle  of  the  Reformation  is  palpably,  habitually,  and  syste- 
matically violated  by  the  orthodox  denomination. 

On  the  other  hand,  does  the  unitarian  denomination  allow  all  men  an 
EQUAL  right  to  study  and  understand  the  Scriptures  for  themselves  ? 
Let  us  examine  their  conduct  in  similar  particulars.  There  have  been 
one  or  more  instances,  in  which  a  unitarian  minister  embraced  orthodox 
sentiments.  And  what  was  the  conduct  of  his  liberal  brethren  ?  Did 
they  call  him  to  an  account  for  his  honest  opinions  ;  proclaim  to  the 
world  that  he  had  renounced  the  Scriptures,  denied  the  Messiah,  made 
shipwreck  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  disqualified  himself  for  the  gospel 
ministry  ;  and  then  dissolve  his  ministerial  connexion  with  his  congre- 
gation ?  No  ;  nothing  of  the  kind.  They  left  him  and  his  own  society 
to  settle  their  difficulties  according  to  the  established  rules  of  Congre- 
gationalism. And  was  not  this  allowing  him  an  equal  right  to  study  and 
understand  the  Scriptures  for  himself?  Certainly.  For  they  had  as 
much  right,  and  reason,  and  power,  to  punish  him  for  his  heresy,  as  any 
orthodox  body  ever  had,  to  punish  one  of  their  number  for  embracing 
unitarianism.  —  It  has  happened  in  one  or  more  instances,  that  a  mem- 
ber of  a  unitarian  association  has  embraced  orthodox  sentiments.  And 
what  was  the  conduct  of  his  liberal  brethren  ?  Did  they  send  a  com- 
mittee to  catechize  him  as  to  his  honest  opinions  ;  exclude  him  from  their 
body  on  account  of  his  errors  ;  endeavour  to  create  divisions  in  his 
parish;  and  do  all  in  their  power  to  injure  his  influence,  usefulness,  and 
happiness  ?  No  ;  nothing  of  the  kind.  They  left  him  to  pursue  his 
own  chosen  course,  unblamed,  unmolested,  unpunished.  And  was  not 
this  granting  him  an  equal  right  to  study  and  understand  the  Scriptures 
for  himself?  Certainly.  For  they  had  the  same  right,  and  reason,  and 
power,  to  punish  him  for  his  heresy,  as  any  orthodox  body  ever  had  to 
punish  one  of  their  number  for  embracing  unitarianism.  —  Orthodox 
ministers  formerly  lived  on  terras  of  ministerial  intercourse  with  their 


112  LETTER  II. 

unitarian  brethren.  A  combination  has  latterly  been  formed  by  the 
leaders  of  the  party  to  prevent  the  interchange  of  kind  offices  and  pro- 
fessional labors.  And  what  has  been  the  conduct  of  their  liberal 
brethren?  Have  they  resented  such  a  measure  with  unchristian  Re- 
proaches ;  and  endeavoured  to  ruin  their  peace,  and  prosperity,  and 
enjoyment  ?  No ;  nothing  of  the  kind.  They  have  merely  pointed 
out  the  illiberality  and  oppression  and  unchristian  character  of  such 
a  course  ;  and  left  them  to  reap  the  bitter  consequences  of  their  chosen 
measure.  And  was  not  this  granting  them  an  equal  right  to  study  and 
understand  the  Scriptures  for  themselves  ?  Certainly.  For  they  have 
as  much  right,  and  reason,  and  power,  to  pjmish  them  for  this  departure 
from  former  practice,  as  any  orthodox  parsons  ever  possessed  to  punish 
any  of  their  number  for  still  adhering  to  this  ancient  usage.  —  It  has 
happened  in  one  or  more  instances,  that  a  unitarian  church-member 
has  embraced  orthodox  sentiments.  And  what  was  the  conduct  of 
his  liberal  brethren  ?  Did  tliey  call  him  to  account  for  his  honest 
opinions ;  forbid  his  giving  the  reasons  of  his  change  of  faith ; 
excommunicate  him  from  their  fellowship ;  and  cast  him  forth  as 
an  apostate,  infidel,  demon  ?  No ;  nothing  of  the  kind.  They  de- 
prived him  of  no  privilege ;  accused  him  of  no  crime ;  left  him 
unmolested  in  his  enjoyments,  and  gave  him  a  dismission  and  re- 
commendation when  respectfully  requested.  And  was  not  tliis  grant- 
ing him  an  equal  right  to  study  and  understand  the  Scriptures  for  him- 
self ?  Certainly.  For  they  had  as  much  right,  and  reason,  and  power, 
to  punish  him  for  his  heresies,  as  any  orthodox  church  ever  possessed 
to  punish  one  of  their  members  for  embracing  unitarianism.  More 
examples  might  be  produced  ;  but  these  are  sufficient  to  convince  the 
public  that  this  principle  of  Protestantism  is  sacredly  observed  by  the 
unitarian  denomination.  And  these  two  are  the  only  great,  essential, 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Reformation,  as  every  man  of  education 
will  acknowledge.  And  for  my  own  part,  I  can  see  no  way,  in  which 
the  unitarians  could  have  observed  them  more  sacredly ;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  I  know  of  no  method,  in  which  the  orthodox  could  have 
disregarded  them  more  palpably.  But  I  leave  the  public  to  draw  their 
own  conclusion  from  the  evidence  presented. 

3.  Doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  In  the  third  place,  were  the  Re- 
formers agreed  in  any  particular  set  of  reformed  doctrines'?  No;  on 
those  points  in  which  they  differed  from  the  Catholics,  they  had  very 
little  agreement  among  themselves.  They  were  agreed  in  the  two 
great  principles  of  Protestantism;  in  salvation  without  human  merit; 
and  in  certain  practical  abuses  of  the  mother  church.  Beyond  these, 
they  came  to  no  agreement  on  any  important  topic  which  they  dis- 
cussed. They  formed  different  systems  of  theology  as  well  as  of  church 
government.  In  proof  of  these  assertions,  I  will  now  adduce  satisfac- 
tory evidence.     Will  you  admit  the  testimony  of  the  learned  and  ortho- 


LETTER  II.  U3 

dox  Br.  Campbell?  Well,  here  you  have  his  own  words.  "It  ia 
admitted  also  as  undeniable,  that  the  Reformers,  who  arose  about  the 
Same  time  in  different  places,  differed  on  several  articles  in  the  doctrine 
which  they  taught.  As  long  as  they  confined  themselves  to  the  abuses 
which  had,  from  worldly  motives  been  introduced  into  the  church, 
there  was  a  wonderful  harmony  among  them  all.  The  sale  of  indul- 
gences, the  celebacy  of  the  clergy  enforced  by  canon,  the  withholding 
of  the  eucharistical  cup  from  the  people,  the  religious  service  in  an 
unknown  tongue,  the  worship  paid  to  images  and  relics,  the  invocation 
of  saints  and  angels,  the  clerical  usurpations  of  secular  power,  the  ren- 
dering of  church  censures  subservient  to  the  avarice  and  ambition  of 
ecclesiastics,  were  practical  corruptions  in  worship  and  discipline, 
wherein  all  the  Reformers  agreed.  As  long  as  they  confined  their 
declamation  to  church  tyranny,  to  the  correction  of  superstitious  and 
idolatrous  practices,  to  those  clerical  artifices  for  enhancing  power  and 
wealth,  which  were  subversive  of  sound  morality,  they  concurred  har- 
moniously in  every  thing  ;  but  no  sooner  did  they  enter  on  the  endless 
and  unprofitable  discussion  of  abstruse  and  unedifying  questions,  of 
which  holy  writ  has  either  said  nothing,  or  given  no  decision,  than  their 
harmony  icas  at  an  end.  They  subdivided  immediately.  They  alarmed 
those  who  were  inclined  to  think  favorably  of  their  cause.  They  made 
many  retreat  who  had  made  advances.  They  supplied  their  enemy 
with  arms  against  them,  and  made  enemies  of  friends ;  inasmuch  as 
many  became  enemies  to  one  another.  Then  arose  the  distinction  of 
Lutheran,  and  Zuinglian,  and  Calvinist,  and  Sacramentarian,  and 
Ubiquitarian  ;  the  first  three  as  implying,  not  barely  the  disciples  of  such 
particular  teachers,  but  the  partisans  of  different  systems."  Does 
not  this  extract  establish  the  truth  of  my  positions  most  conclusively  ? 
But  I  have  much  more  evidence  directly  to  the  point.  Will  you  take 
the  testimony  of  the  great  and  learned  Erasmus,  who  was  in  reality  a 
distinguished  Reformer,  and  when  invited  by  the  others  to  join  their 
company,  returned  the  folloAving  answer  ?  "  You  all  appeal  to  the  pure 
word  of  God,  whereof  you  think  yourselves  true  interpreters.  Agree 
then  among  yourselves  about  its  meaning,  before  you  pretend  to  give 
laws  to  the  world."  Will  you  take  the  evidence  of  Calvin  himself? 
Here  you  have  his  afl[idavit.  "  B  is  of  importance  that  no  suspicions  of  the 
divisions  which  are  amongst  u^  descend  to  future  ages ;  for  it  is  ridicu- 
lous BEYOND  IMAGINATION,  that,  oftcr  having  broken  ivith  all  the  world, 
we  should,  from  the  beginning  of  our  reformation,  agree  so  ill 
AMONG  ourselves."  Moro  quotations  might  be  introduced  ;  but  these 
are  sufficient  to  convince  the  public,  that  there  was  no  agreement 
among  the  Reformers,  in  any  particular  set  of  reformed  doctrines. 

But  perhaps  you  will  ask  if  the  Reformers  were  not  agreed  in  the 
great   doctrines  of  the  trinity,  the  deity  of  Christ,    the  atonement, 
the  utter  depravity  of  human  nature,  unconditional  election,  endless 
.15 


114  LETTER  11. 

punishment,  and  the  like.  These,  my  dear  Sir,  were  not  the  doctrines 
of  the  Reformation.  They  are  the  venj  doctrine*''  which  were  not  re- 
formed. They  were  not  allowed  to  be  examined.  Servetus  did  in- 
deed attempt  to  reform  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  but  lost  his  life  in 
the  worthy  undertaking.  Zuingle  did  likewise  reject  some  of  the 
other  human  traditions,  but  was  severely  censured  for  his  liberality. 
The  rest  of  the  Reformers  received  them  without  discussion,  and  for 
this  reason  they  form  no  part  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  No; 
they  are  really  and  literally  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  church  ;  for 
more  or  less  of  them  had  been  actually  voted  into  her  creed  by  the 
holding-  up  of  priestly  hands,  at  different  times  and  under  various 
forms ;  and  those  which  were  not  so  introduced,  had  been  invented 
and  advocated  by  individual  members  of  her  communion,  long  before 
the  Reformation.  It  is  perfectly  absurd,  therefore,  to  call  those  very 
doctrines,  which  had  been  embraced  for  years  in  the  Catholic  de- 
nomination, which  were  not  suffered  to  be  examined  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  and  which  are  still  retained  as  fundamental  articles  by 
the  mother  church,  doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  As  well  may  yea 
call  the  existence  of  God,  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  and  the 
immortality  of  man,  doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  I  do  hope,  that 
honest  men  will  no  longer  endeavour  to  impose  on  themselves  and  thfe 
community,  by  asserting  that  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  Catholic 
creed  were  the  grand  doctrines  of  the  Reformation. 

And  permit  me  to  inquire,  if  there  was  any  remarkable  agreement 
between  Calvin  and  Luther,  so  as  to  cause  you  to  distinguish  these 
two  from  the  rest  of  the  Reformers  ?  I  think  not ;  although  I  admit 
that  these  two  did  not  proceed  so  far  as  some  others  in  reforming 
several  Catholic  doctrines,  and  therefore  had  more  points  in  common. 
It  does  appear  to  me,  that  they  quarrelled  in  a  most  shameful  manner, 
and  that  there  has  been  but  precious  little  harmony  among  their  follow- 
ers. Did  my  limits  permit,  I  could  produce  a  great  abundance  of  evi- 
dence in  proof  of  these  assertions  ;  but  I  must  content  myself  with  a  few 
quotations  from  their  writings.  From  the  commencement  of  the  Re- 
formation, the  Calvinists  and  Lutherans  were  embroiled  in  most  bitter 
controversy.  At  an  early  period  of  its  progress,  a  champion  was  ap- 
pointed by  each  party  to  settle  some  disputed  subjects  in  public  de- 
bate. Beza  was  delegated  to  defend  the  Calvinistic  doctrine,  and 
Andree  the  Lutheran.  After  a  long  war  of  words,  in  which  no  -diffi- 
culties were  adjusted,  Beza  thug  declared :  "  Quia  dextras  fraterni- 
tatis  nobis  porrigere  recusatis,  et  nos  pro  fratribus  agnoscere  non 
vultis,  amicitiffi  dextras  etiam  nolo."  The  meaning  of  which  is  this : 
"Becaiise  you  will  not  give  us  the  right-hand  of  fellowship,  nor  ac- 
knowledge us  as  brethren,  neither  indeed  will  I  extend  to  you  the 
right-hand  of  fri'jndship."  Does  this  look  like  union  ?  Andr©  thus  an- 
swered.   "  Erj;o  intcrmittatur."    "  Let  us  then  terminate  our  dis- 


LETTER  II.  115 

pute."  The  old  writer,  from  whom  this  fact  is  taken,  thus  concludes 
the  account.  "  Imo  creverunt  odia."  "  Thus  the  enmity  of  the  two 
parties  rather  increased."  Is  this  evidence  of  agreement  ?  But  this  is 
only  the  beginning  of  testimony.  In  several  of  the  Lutheran  writers 
of  the  first  respectability,  you  find  the  doctrine  of  Calvinism  pronounced 
"  sacrilegam,  execrandam,  abominandam,  et  diabolicam."  "  The  doc- 
trine of  Calvinism  is  sacrilegious,  execrable,  abominable,  and  devilish." 
Is  this  the  language  of  Christian  fellowship?  But  let  us  proceed  to 
the  sayings  of  the  great  Reformers  themselves.  Among  other  points 
of  difference,  Luther  believed  the  soul  was  material,  and  slept  with 
the  body  until  the  resurrection.  Calvin  was  violently  opposed  to  this 
opinion,  and  accordingly  wrote  a  book  to  controvert  this  dangerous 
error,  entitled,  "  Psychopannychia."  In  this  work,  he  calls  all  who 
advocate  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  sleep  of  the  soul,  "  babblers,  madmen, 
dreamers,  and  drunkards."  Are  these  the  most  appropriate  expres- 
sions of  brotherly  love  ?  Let  us  now  hear  Luther's  opinion  of  the 
spirit  of  the  Calvinists.  Here  you  have  it  in  his  own  words.  "  Spiritus 
Calvinistarum  est  diabolicus  spiritus,  mendax  jfspiritus,  rebellionis  et 
dissentionis  spiritus,  fugitivus,  inconstans,  et  vertiginosus  spiritus." 
"The  spirit  of  the  Calvinists  is  a  devilish  spirit,  a  lying  spirit,  a  rebel- 
lious and  quarrelsome  spirit,  a  cowardly,  changing,  giddy  spirit."  Re- 
member that  these  are  the  kind  expressions  of  Luther's  friendship. 
Let  us  hear  his  opinion  respecting  the  Calvinists  themselves.  Here  you 
have  it  in  his  own  words.  "  Calvinistae-sunt  fanatici,  progenies  vipe- 
rina,  animicideB,  impii,  blasphemi,  deceptores,  sanguinarii,  infernales 
molossi,  Germanici  Turcae,  a  Sathana  missi  et  obsessi,  Mahometani 
baptizati,  perdiabolati,  transdiabolati,  superdiabolati."  In  Kentucky,  I 
think  this  would  be  considered  as  going  for  the  whole.  I  would  not 
give  the  English  of  this  passage,  were  it  not  to  gratify  my  orthodox 
readers  with  as  many  of  the  choice  sayings  of  the  venerated  Reformer 
as  my  limits  permit.  Here  it  is.  "  The  Calvinists  are  fanatics,  a  pro- 
geny of  vipers,  soul-murderers,  impious,  blasphemous,  deceivers,  blood- 
thirsty, hellish  dogs,  German  Turks,  sent  and  possessed  by  Satan, 
baptized  Mahometans,  very  devilish,  more  than  devilish,  superlatively 
devilish."  This  is  pretty  strong  language  for  one  "  pious  and  blessed  " 
Reformer  to  use  towards  the  followers  of  another,  with  whom  he  was 
on  terms  of  perfect  agreement.  It  is  certainly  rather  a  novel  mode  of 
expressing  union,  harmony,  aflfection,  and  cordial  co-operation.  Had 
such  expressions  come  from  unitarians,  would  you  have  regarded 
them  as  the  most  expressive  signs  of  Christian  fellowship  ?  I  think 
sufiicient  evidence  has  been  produced  to  convince  the  world's  people, 
that  there  was  no  love  lost  between  Calvin  and  Luther ;  and  that 
their  wonderful  agreement  in  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Reformation 
did  not  produce  the  most  Christian;j^disposition  in  either.  I  will  only 
add,  that  I  shall  never  more  be  surprised  at  the  denunciations  of  the 


116  LETTER  II. 

orthodox,  while  I  remember  that  they  proceed  from  those  who  "  ehoote 
to  loalk  and  insist  on  walking  in  the  old  paths  of  the  Reformers." 

4.  Orthodox  agreement  taith  Calvinism.  In  the  fourth  place,  does 
the  orthodox  denomination  agree  with  the  peculiar  sentiments  of  John 
Calvin  ?  I  think  not  generally  ;  but  I  will  not  decide  the  question  with- 
out evidence.  What  then  are  the  grand  doctrines  of  Calvinism  ?  Not 
those  surely  which  he  received  from  his  Catliolic  motiier,  and  which 
she  still  teaches  to  her  faithfijl  children.  No ;  the  doctrines  of  Calvin- 
ism must  be  those  which  were  peculiar  to  Calvin,  and  which  have  been 
honored  with  his  name.  Such  doctrines  do  indeed  exist.  They  are 
called  the  Five  Points  of  Calvinism.  They  are  so  called  to  distinguish 
them  from  Arminianism,  or  to  indicate  the  particulars  in  which  his 
doctrine  differed  from  the  views  of  Arminius.  What  then  are  these 
articles.  I  will  give  them  to  you,  as  agreed  upon  by  the  large  body  of 
Calvinistic  divines  at  the  famous  synod  of  Dort.  I  take  them  as 
abridged  by  Daniel  Tilenus.  "  Art.  I.  That  God,  by  an  absolute  decree, 
hath  elected  to  salvation  a  very  small  number  of  men,  without  any  re- 
gard to  their  faith  or  obedience  whatever  ;  and  secluded  from  saving 
grace  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  appointed  them,  by  the  same  decree, 
to  eternal  damnation,  without  any  regard  to  their  infidelity  or  impeni- 
tency.  —  Art.  II.  That  Jesus  Christ  hath  not  suffered  death  for  any 
other,  but  for  those  elect  only ;  having  neither  had  any  intent,  nor  com- 
mandment of  his  Father,  to  make  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world.  —  Art.  III.  That  by  Adam's  fall  his  posterity  lost  their  free  will, 
being  put  to  an  unavoidable  necessity  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  whatever  they 
do,  or  do  not,  whether  it  be  good  or  evil ;  being  thereunto  predestinated 
by  the  eternal  and  effectual  secret  decree  of  God.  —  Art.  IV.  That  God 
to  save  his  elect  from  the  corrupt  mass,  doth  beget  faith  in  them  by  a 
power  equal  to  that  whereby  he  created  the  world  and  raised  up  the 
dead  ;  insomuch  that  such,  unto  whom  he  gives  that  grace,  cannot  reject 
it,  and  the  rest,  being  reprobate,  cannot  accept  it.  —  Art.  V.  That  such  as 
have  once  received  that  grace  by  faith,  can  never  fall  from  it  finally  or 
totally,  notwithstanding  the  most  enormous  sins  they  can  commit."  No 
one  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Calvin  will  deny,  that  these  are  his 
real  sentiments  ;  —  the  five  points  in  which  his  views  differ  from  Armin- 
ianism. Reject  these  articles,  and  you  reject  Galvanism  ;  receive  them 
and  you  are  a  Calvinist. 

Now  does  the  orthodox  denomination  at  the  present  day  believe  these 
five  articles  of  Calvin,  as  well  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  church 
which  he  retained,  and  the  doctrines  of  infant  damnation  and  the  law- 
fulness of  murdering  those  who  differ  from  their  human  standard  of 
religious  truth  ?  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  many  of  the  leaders  do 
teally  believe  in  all  of  Calvinism  but  the  two  last  articles ;  but  I  ven- 
ture to  assert  that  the  great  majority  of  professors  inortiiodox  churches 
do  not  believe  more  tlian  one  or  two  points  of  Calvinism,  and  but  n  part 
of  the  Catholic  doctrines  which  were  preserved  by  the  Genevan  Reform- 


LETTER  II.  117 

er.  In  proof  of  this  assertion,  I  can  merely  refer  you  to  three  or  four 
sources  of  evidence.  In  the  first  place,  go  into  society,  and  ask  the 
members  of  orthodox  congregations  to  explain  their  views  of  religion. 
I  have  done  this  in  different  places,  and  to  some  considerable  extent ; 
and  I  have  found  but  a  precious  few,  who  adhered  to  the  sentiments  of 
Calvin,  or  to  the  particular  form  in  which  he  advocated  the  unreformed 
doctrines  of  the  Catholic  church.  In  the  second  place,  a  graduate  of 
your  Seminary  related  to  me  the  following  anecdote  in  substance. 
Said  he,  "  I  was  passing  an  evening  with  a  very  intelligent  and  highly 
educated  lady  of  the  orthodox  church  ;  she  uttered  some  severe  remarks 
concerning  Arminian  sentiments.  I  took  occasion  afterward  to  read  to 
her  the  articles  on  Calvinism  and  Arminianism  in  Hannah  Adams's  Dic- 
tionary of  Religions,  without  letting  her  know  to  which  side  they  be- 
longed. I  asked  which  statement  expressed  most  nearly  her  views  of 
religion  ?  She  readily  answered,  —  *  The  one  last  read,'  which  was  Ar- 
minianism. And  if  the  same  thmg  could  be  done  in  the  same  manner  to 
all  the  members  of  our  denomination,  I  have  no  doubt,  that  nine  out  of 
ten  would  make  the  same  reply."  Of  the  truth  of  this  supposition  I 
have  not  the  least  doubt ;  for  my  own  experience  and  observation  fully 
confirm  the  statement.  In  the  third  place,  look  at  the  frequent  com- 
plaints of  misrepresentations  made  by  members  of  your  party.  When- 
ever a  unitarian,  either  in  the  pulpit  or  from  the  press,  has  given  the 
Calvinisiic  sentiments,  the  great  mass  of  your  professors  have  declared 
that  they  held  no  such  opinions.  But  there  is  another  more  satisfactory 
source  of  evidence.  I  mean  the  publications  of  «o»ie  of  your  church 
members  and  preachers.  By  comparing  their  real  opinions  with  Cal- 
vinism, I  can  see  no  great  resemblance ;  and  for  one,  I  firmly  bevlieve 
that  if  Calvin  was  now  alive  in  this  country,  and  entertained  the  same 
opinions  as  before  his  death,  and  possessed  the  same  disposition  and 
power  as  when  reigning  at  Geneva,  he  would  very  quickly  serve  even 
yourself,  and  no  small  portion  of  your  denomination  as  he  did  Servetus, 
for  your  heresies  or  departures  from  the  articles  of  his  creed.  I  think 
every  man  who  will  examine  this  subject  must  come  to  the  same  con- 
clusion. Why  then  will  you  attempt  to  make  the  less  informed  part  of 
the  community  believe,  that  you  still  adhere  to  all  the  important  senti- 
ments of  Calvin  ? 

But  perhaps  you  will  say,  that  you  have  already  publicly  declared 
that  "  you  do  not  receive  every  thing  which  Calvin  taught,  nor  any 
thing  because  he  taught  it."  Very  well.  This  is  a  most  important 
declaration.  Now  if  you  have  the  right  of  renouncing  one  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine,  because  it  does  not  appear  to  your  mind  to  coincide 
"With  the  instructions  of  Scripture,  have  I  not  the  same  right  ?  May 
I  not,  for  the  same  reason,  renounce  every  Calvinistic  doctrine  which 
appears  to  me  unchristian  ?  Surely.  Why  then  do  you  condemn  me 
for  so  doing  ?  Why  do  you  make  such  great  exertions  to  prejudice  the 
ignorant  against  unitarians,  by  assuring  them  that  they  have  renounced 


118  LETTER  II. 

th«  great  doctrines  of  the  Refonnation  ?  Does  not  such  a  practice  con- 
demn yourself?  Or  are  you  commissioned  to  decide  just  how  far  a  man 
may  depart  from  Calvinism  and  remain  innocent  ?  If  you  have  received 
any  such  authority,  please  to  exhibit  your  credentials,  for  on  this  ques- 
tion your  mere  assertion  is  not  satisfactory  ;  and  if  you  have  no  such 
infallibility,  why  not  act  consistently  ?  Why  not  acknowledge,  that  I 
have  the  same  right  to  depart  ten  steps  from  Calvinism,  that  you  have 
to  depart  two !  Why  not  admit,  that  I  may  as  justly  censure  you, 
for  lingering  behind  in  tlie  march  of  religious  knowledge,  as  you  may 
blame  me,  for  marching  at  too  rapid  a  pace  ?  I  must  confess,  that  all 
this  noise  and  blustering  about  tlie  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  appear 
to  me  perfectly  ridiculous,  to  say  nothing  more  severe.  I  am  free  to 
acknowledge,  that  the  authority  of  the  Reformers  weighs  exceeding 
little  in  my  estimation.  For  who  were  those  said  Reformers  ?  Mere 
fallible,  prejudiced,  sinful  mortals;  men  who  had  been  stuffed  even 
to  surfeiting  with  Catholic  traditions,  absurdities,  and  errors;  men 
whose  advantages  for  ascertaining  the  true  meaning  of  the  Gospel 
were  far  inferior  to  those  of  the  present  day;  men  who  make  no 
claims  to  perfection,  infallibility,  or  inspiration.  And  must  I  regard 
such  characters  as  lights  of  the  world  ?  Is  it  to  be  supposed,  that  men 
thus  educated  and  situated  could  have  burst  at  once  from  the  midnight 
darkness  of  Popery  to  the  meridian  splendor  of  Christianity  ?  No ;  such 
a  supposition  would  be  perfectly  absurd.  I  am  as  ready  as  any  one  to 
acknowledge  their  true  merits,  and  their  just  claims  on  our  gratitude. 
They  were  great  men  for  that  unenlightened  period  ;  but  were  they 
now  living,  would  you  point  to  them  as  the  doctors  of  theological 
science  and  knowledge  ?  They  were  good  men  for  those  wicked  days  ; 
but  were  they  now  exhibiting  the  same  temper  and  conduct,  would  you 
hold  them  up  as  worthy  examples  of  imitation  in  Christian  holiness  ? 
They  had  many  blemishes  and  sins  in  their  religious  characters ;  and 
were  such  now  practised  by  any  of  your  divines,  would  not  their  very 
standing  in  society  be  forfeited  ?  I  indeed  honor  their  courage,  their 
resolution,  their  perseverance,  in  breaking  from  the  shackles  of  the 
mother  church,  and  asserting  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
right  of  private  judgment ;  but  I  censure  their  open  violation  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  Protestantism.  I  respect  their  virtues  and 
achievements  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  religious  liberty ;  but  I  pity 
their  superstitions,  their  errors,  their  bigotry,  and  tlieir  cruelty.  I  have 
no  desire  to  be  baptized  into  the  names  of  any  of  the  number.  And 
as  to  their  writings,  I  am  prepared  to  adhere  to  them  just  so  far  as  they 
appear  to  me  to  adhere  to  the  plain  instructions  of  revelation,  and  no 
farther.  I  should  as  soon  think  of  taking  my  views  of  Chemistry  from 
the  lucubrations  of  the  old  Alchemists,  as  my  views  of  Christianity  from 
the  speculations  of  tlie  old  Reformers.  In  one  word,  I  am  ready  to  use 
their  publications  in  precisely  the  same  manner  that  John  Calvin  used 
the  works  of  the  old  Christian  Fathers.    These  are  his  words.     "  While 


LETTER  11.  119 

we  make  use  of  their  writings,  we  always  remember  that  all  things  are 
ours  to  serve  us,  not  to  have  dominion  over  us ;  and  that  we  are  Christ's 
alone,  and  owe  him  universal  obedience.  He  who  neglects  this  dis- 
tinction, will  have  nothing  decided  in  religion ;  since  those  holy  men 
were  ignorant  of  many  things,  frequently  at  variance  with  each  other, 
and  sometimes  even  inconsistent  with  themselves." 

What  then  must  be  our  conclusion  ?  Does  not  the  evidence  which  I 
have  produced  fully  establish  the  four  following  particulars  ?  Firstf 
that  there  was  very  little  harmony  or  agreement  among  the  Reform- 
ers. Secondly,  that  unitarians  adhere  to  their  principles  most  firmly ; 
while  the  orthodox  violate  them  most  palpably.  Thirdly,  that  unita- 
rians are  justified  in  their  departure  from  the  doctrines  of  Calvin,  since 
it  has  been  occasioned  b^, -their  adherence  to  the  principles  of  Protes- 
tantism ;  while  the  orthodox  have  also  renounced  so  many  cf  the  peculiar- 
ities of  tliis  Reformer,  that  he  would  not  own  them  as  true  disciples. 
Andi  fourthly,  that  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  are  guilty  of  great 
unfairness  in  keeping  from  the  people  a  considerable  part  of  the  truth 
on  these  important  topics.  I  must  conclude  that  the  above  propositions 
are  perfectly  demonstrated. 

II.  Disagreement. 

Many  individuals  in  your  denomination  have  attempted  to  make  the 
unlearned  part  of  the  community  believe  these  two  statements.  First, 
that  the  orthodox  disagree  only  on  the  non-essentials  of  religion.  And 
secondly,  that  they  differ  from  the  unitarians  on  the  essentials  of  the 
Gospel.  I  perceive  that  you  haye  endeavoured  to  confirm  these  im- 
pressions. One  quotation  will  be  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  Here  are 
your  words  :  "  We  are  prone  to  ask  a  question  which  is  not  recent. 
*  How  can  two  walk  together,  unless  they  are  ag-reerf  ? '  We  do  not 
urge  these  words  beyond  what  we  think  to  be  their  plain  and  obvious 
import.  We  do  not  think  that  small  differences  of  opinion  about  non- 
essentials, are  intended  to  be  included  in  them.  We  limit  the  agree- 
ment to  things  which  in  our  view  are  essential.  Such  we  do  honestly 
believe  to  be  the  difference  between  unitarians  and  ourselves.^''  Now  is 
all  this  true  .^  Are  the  orthodox  really  agreed  in  all  the  essentials  of 
religion?  Is  the  disagreement  between  them  and  the  unitarians  so 
vast,  as  to  place  an  impassable  gulph  between  the  two  denominations  ? 
I  think  not.  I  do  honestly  believe  that  you  diflfer  more  among  your- 
selves on  those  very  doctrines,  which  you  call  essential,  than  you  do 
with  unitarians  on  the  same  subjects.     But  let  facts  decide. 

1.  The  JVature  of  God.  In  relation  to  the  nature  of  God,  there  are  now 
four  distinct  systems  prevailing  among  the  orthodox.  The  frst  class  pro- 
fess this  belief:  "That  in  the  Godhead  are  three pp.rsons,  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  these  three  are  one  God,  the  same 
in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory."  This  is  the  doctrine  to  which 
you  are  obliged  to  assent  every  five  years.  One  of  the  distinguished 
advocates  of  this  view  has  made  this  declaration:  "That  the  Father, 


120  LETTER  11. 

the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  as  really  distinct  persons^  as  Peter, 
James,  and  John ;  and  each  of  which  is  God.  To  say  that  there  are 
three  divine  persons,  and  not  three  distinct  infinite  minds,  is  both  heresy 
and  nonsense^  I  should  call  tlus  a  belief  in  three  Gods.  For  if  you 
aver,  that  the  Fatlier  alone  is  a  perfect  Being",  the  Son  alone  is  a  perfect 
Being,  and  the  Spirit  alone  is  a  perfect  Being ;  tlien  you  believe  in  three 
perfect  Beings ;  and  if  so,  in  three  perfect  Gods ;  for  God  can  be  noth- 
ing more  nor  less  than  one  perfect  Being. 

A  second  class  profess  this  belief:  "  That  God  exists  in  three  distinct 
persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  tliat  these  three 
are  one  God,  the  same  in  nature  and  equcd  in  every  perfection."  A 
distinguished  advocate  of  this  view  assures  us,  "  that  the  Father  alone  is 
not  God."  And  another  defender,  of  this  form,  of  the  doctrine  makes  this 
declaration :  "  That  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  three  proper  distinct 
persons,  entirely  equal  to,  and  independent  upon  each  other,  yet  making 
up  one  and  the  same  Being."  I  should  call  this  a  belief  in  no  God. 
For  if  the  Father  alone  is  not  a  perfect  Being,  the  Son  alone  is  not  a 
perfect  Being,  the  Spirit  alone  is  not  a  perfect  Being  ;  then  you  believe 
in  three  imperfect  Beings  ;  and  if  so,  you  believe  in  no  God ;  for  three 
imperfect  Beings  can  never  make  up  one  perfect  Being. 

A  third  class  profess  this  belief:  "  That  the  Fatlier  is  made  of  none, 
neither  created  nor  begotten.  The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone ;  not 
made,  nor  created,  but  begotten.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son;  neither  made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten,  but  proceeding.^* 
I  should  call  this  a  belief  in  that  form  of  unitarianism  sometimes  termed 
high  Arianism.  For  if  the  Son  was  begotten  by  the  Father,  then  the 
Father  must  have  existed  before  he  begat  the  Son  ;  and  consequently, 
the  Son  cannot  be  self-existent ;  but  must  have  been  dependent  for  his 
existence  on  a  self-existent  Father.  And  if  the  Spirit  proceeded  from 
both  Father  and  Son,  then  he  could  not  have  had  so  early  a  beginning 
as  the  begotten  Son ;  and  consequently  must  be  subordinate  to  both. 

A  fourth  class  profess  this  belief:  "That  there  is  one  Infinite, 
Eternal  Mind,  and  three  somethings  that  are  not  distinct  minds.^  So  far 
as  I  am  able  to  understand  your  explanations  of  the  doctrine,  I  think 
this  is  the  particular  form  you  advocate,  notwithstanding  your  quinquen- 
nial vows  to  the  contrary.  I  should  call  this  a  belief  in  the  simplest 
form  of  unitarianism,  sometimes  termed  humanitarianism.  For  if  your 
somethings  or  distinctions  are  not  distinct  minds,  they  are  mere  unmean- 
ing names.  And  those  who  adhere  to  tliis  view  of  the  subject,  impose 
upon  themselves  by  using  words  without  any  definite  ideas  ;  and  then 
endeavour  to  make  others  believe  that  they  are  sound  in  the  orthodox 
faith. 

Such  are  the  various  and  contradictory  systems  of  the  trinity  now 
in  vogue  among  the  members  of  your  denomination.  I  suppose  you 
will  aver,  that  so  long  as  all  the  classes  will  agree  to  use  the  word 
trinity,  all  this  disagreement  in  ideas  is  non-essential. 


LETTER  II.  121 

2.  TheJVature  of  the  Son  of  God.  In  relation  to  the  nature  of  the  Son  of 
God,  there  are  now  five  distinct  systems  prevailing  among  the  orthodox. 
One  class  profess  this  belief.  "  That  the  Son  of  God  had  no  existence 
until  conceived  by  the  Virgin  Mary."  This  is  your  view.  To  establish 
this  point  you  wrote  a  volume  of  Letters  to  your  friend  Dr.  Miller.  He 
regarded  your  form  of  the  doctrine  a>  approaching  to  unitarianism.  For 
in  his  answer  to  your  publication,  you  find  these  explicit  declarations : 
"  A  number  of  your  arguments  ;  the  strain  of  your  principal  objections  ; 
and  the  license  which  you  indulge,  in  many  cases,  in  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  — all  savour  so  much  of  a  school  with  which  I  should  abhor 
the  thought  of  associating  your  respected  name,  that  I  read  them  with 
not  a  little  pain.  Yes,  my  dear  Sir,  though  I  know  you  abhor  the  senti- 
ments of  that  school  from  your  heart ;  yet,  if  your  name  were  removed 
from  the  title-page ;  and  if  the  several  passages  in  which  you  profess 
your  firm  belief  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  were  expunged  from  the  pam- 
phlet, 1  should  really  suspect  that  it  had  come  from  some  member  of  the 
unitarian  ranks,  rather  than  from  the  midst  of  the  orthodox  camp."  Now 
the  Doctor  is  mistaken  in  calling  your  belief  on  this  subject  unitarian  ; 
he  should  have  pronounced  it  real  Socinianism.  For  Socinus  held  the 
same  view  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  still  contended  that  he  should  be 
worshipped.  And  I  believe  you  would  have  all  men  honor  the  Son 
even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  For  I  recollect  hearing  one  of  your 
party  utter  these  sentiments  in  solemn  prayer  about  the  time  of  your 
controversy  :  "  O  thou  who  hast  ascended  to  thy  God  and  our  God,  we 
beseech  thee  by  thy  wearisome  labors,  by  thy  bloody  sweat,  and  by  thy 
agonizing  cross,  to  hear  and  answer  our  prayers."  So  long  as  reason 
remains,  I  shall  never  forget  the  shock  produced  on  my  feelings,  by  this 
prayer  to  a  human  deity.  I  must  therefore  call  this  a  belief  in  Socinian- 
ism. I  do  hope  you  will  advance  one  step  further,  and  take  your  stand 
on  the  more  rational  and  Scriptural  ground  of  unitarianism. 

A  second  class  profess  the  same  belief,  that  you  assure  us  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers  did,  for  the  three  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  As 
you  have  investigated  this  subject  very  thoroughly,  I  will  give  the  result 
of  your  labors  in  your  own  words.  Here  it  is.  "  I  begin  then  by 
giving  the  result  of  my  investigations  respecting  the  three  first  centu- 
ries. It  is  this,  viz. ;  that  the  great  body  of  the  early  and  influential 
Christian  Fathers,  whose  works  are  extant,  believed  that  the  Son  of  God 
was  begotten  at  a  period  not  long  before  the  creation  of  the  world."  Among 
the  unlearned  members  of  your  churches,  you  will  find  not  a  few  who  ' 
adhere  to  this  opinion.  I  must  call  this  low  Arianism,  or  the  most 
prevalent  form  of  unitarianism  in  this  country. 

A  third  class  profess  this  belief:  "  That  the  Son  of  God  was  begot- 
ten by  the  Father  from  all  eternity."     To  establish  this  position,  your 
friend  Dr.  Miller  addressed  a  volume  of  Letters  to  yourself.    I  find 
your  opinion  of  his  doctrine  in  the  following  observations.     "  I  am 
16 


122  LETTER  II. 

unable  to  conceive  of  a  definite  meaning  in  the  terms  eternal  generation  ; 
and  I  cannot  regard  them  in  any  other  light  than  as  a  palpable  contra- 
diction  of  language."  This  remark  gave  the  Doctor  so  much  offence, 
that  he  makes  this  assertion  concerning  it :  "  I  will  venture  to  assert 
that  it  is  as  unphilosophical  as  it  is  inipious"  I  believe  you  and  other 
New  England  divines  regard  this  doctrine  of  your  southern  brethren 
and  of  our  Pilgrim  fathers,  as  wholly  subversive  of  the  real  divinity  of 
the  Son.  For  in  a  volume  of  discourses  by  the  late  Dr.  Parish,  I  find 
these  assertions :  "  The  notion  of  an  eternal  generation  is  not  merely  a 
mystery f  but  an  impossibility.  It  is  a  violent  solecism  in  language  to 
call  any  being  the  son  of  another,  who  is  of  the  same  and  equal  origin. 
ThiSf  therefore,  infallihly  destroys  the  real  divinity  of  the  Son."  I  should 
call  this  belief  high  Arianism,  or  one  form  of  unitarianism.  I  think  you 
entertain  the  same  opinion  ;  for  in  your  answer  to  Dr.  Miller  I  find  these 
observations :  "  I  must  confess,  that  with  the  views  which  I  now  en- 
tertain, if  I  could  be  persuaded  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal  emanation  or 
generation  is  true,  I  should  feel  that  the  first  step  was  taken  toioards 
embracing  the  Arian  system.  I  cannot  help  feeling  that  the  idea  of  a 
derived  God  is,  in  reality,  a  vastly  greater  approximation  to  Arianism, 
than  that  which  we  adopt ;  and  that  the  antagonists  of  Arius  had  much 
less  reason  to  dispute  with  him  than  they  apprehended."  You  are  right 
in  this  opinion.  There  is  certainly  as  little  difiTsrence  between  the 
Doctor's  system  and  tlie  Arian  scheme,  as  can  possibly  be  imagined. 

A  fourth  class  profess  this  belief:  "  That  the  Son  of  God  is  equal 
to  God  Jiimself."  One  quotation  from  a  discourse  published  the  present 
year  will  confirm  my  statement.  These  are  tlie  words  of  the  reverend 
divine :  "  As  a  son,  he  possesses  perfectly  the  same  nature  with  the 
Father,  is  the  brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his 
person ;  is  without  beginning,  eternal,  uncreated,  and  almighty,  omnis- 
cient, and  every  where  present ;  in  truth,  possesses  all  divine  perfec- 
tions equally  with  the  Father,  is  equally  with  him  the  object  of  divine 
worship ;  and  must  be  honored  even  as  the  Father.  And  if  any  error 
can  destroy  the  souls  of  men,  it  must  be  that  which  denies  the  son^s 
equality  with  the  Father."  I  should  call  this  a  belief  in  a  second  Gody 
which  is  an  absurdity. 

Affth  class  profess  this  belief:  "  That  the  Son  of  God  is  God  him 
self."  In  proof  of  this  assertion,  I  will  give  you  one  extract  from  a 
sermon  published  the  present  year,  by  a  distinguished  divine  in  Ohio, 
and  circulated  widely  as  a  tract  in  the  Western  country.  Here  it  is. 
"  That  Babe  that  lies  in  a  manger  at  Bethlehem  is  the  mighty  God  I 
Thai  man  of  poverty  who  travels  through  Judea  preaching  pea4:e  to  the 
losty  is  the  everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace  !  The  man  who  is 
pressed  ivith  sorrow  and  covered  with  bloody  sweat  in  Gethsemane,  is  the 
Lord  of  Hosts !  He  who  wears  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  endures  the 
erud  scourge,  and  receives  the  sentence  of  death  at  Pilait's  bar,  is  he 


LETTER  II.  123 

loho  distributes  crowns  of  life !  That  mangled  victim  which  languishes 
on  the  cross,  is  God  over  all  blessed  for  ever!  And  that  blood  ivhich  issues 
from  his  opening  wounds  is  the  blood  of  God ! "  This  is  explicit.  What 
to  call  this  belief,  I  know  not.  I  cannot  describe  it  by  any  Christian 
name.  Such  are  the  various  and  contradictory  systems  now  in  vogue 
among  your  denomination.  I  suppose  you  will  aver,  that  so  long  as 
all  classes  will  agree  to  use  the  words  divinity  of  Chnst,  all  this  dis- 
agreement in  ideas  is  non-essential. 

3.  Atonement.  In  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  there  are 
now  five  prevailing  systems  among  the  orthodox.  T\ie  first  class  pro- 
fess to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  exhibition,  so  called.  This  view  of  the 
subject  originated,  I  believe,  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Murdock,  your  for- 
mer colleague.  He  furnishes  us  with  a  definition  of  his  scheme  in  the 
following  sentence :  "  The  atonement,  to  be  a  proper  substitute  for 
the  execution  of  the  law,  ought  to  be  ^public  exhibition;  and  such  an 
exhibition  as  would  impress  all  tlie  creatures  of  God  with  a  deep  and 
awful  sense  of  the  majesty  and  sanctity  of  his  law,  of  the  criminality  of 
disobedience  to  it ;  and  of  the  holy,  unbending  rectitude  of  God  as  a 
moral  governor ;  and  such  the  atonement  really  was."  When  this 
theory  was  delivered  in  the  chapel  of  your  Seminary,  most  of  your  pupils 
regarded  it  a  vast  improvement  upon  the  cold,  chilling  doctrine  of  Cal- 
vinism. They  accordingly  requested  a  copy  of  the  discourse  for  pub- 
lication. Soon  after  its  appearance,  some  of  your  leaders  thought  it 
contained  heretical  notions,  and  would  injure  the  reputation  of  your 
institution.  An  effort  was  therefore  made  to  crush  its  popularity  and 
influence,  by  requesting  a  gentleman  at  some  distance  to  review  and 
condemn  the  pamphlet. 

A  second  class  profess  to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  substitution,  so 
called.  This  view  was  advocated  by  Luther.  Let  him  then  give  us  an 
explanation  of  this  theory.  Here  are  his  words.  "  Christ  sustained  the 
person  of  a  sinner ;  not  of  one,  but  of  all  sinners ;  and  whosesoever  sins, 
I,  thou,  we,  all  have  done,  or  shall  do  hereafter,  are  Christ's  own  sins 
as  verily  as  if  he  had  done  them."  He  further  declares,  "  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  greatest  trangressor,  murderer,  rebel,  and  blasphemer, 
that  could  be  in  all  the  world."  Soon  after  the  publication  of  Dr. 
Murdock's  sermon  on  the  atonement,  you  came  forward  with  some  dis- 
courses on  the  same  subject.  It  was  thought  expedient  to  do  some- 
thing to  counteract  the  growing  success  of  his  new  views,  and  accord- 
ingly a  boarder  in  your  family  obtained  some  half  a  dozen  names  to 
request  the  publication  of  your  theory.  Your  matter  was  compressed, 
and  made  its  appearance  in  the  form  of  two  discourses.  You  undertake 
to  defend  Luther's  doctrine  of  substitution.  One  quotation  from  the 
pamphlet  will  be  suflicient  for  my  present  purpose.  These  are  your 
words.  "  Since  he  did  not  suffer  on  account  of  any  guilt  of  his  own, 
on  what  ground  can  they  reconcile  his  sufferings  with  the  justice  of 


124  LETTER  II. 

God,  who  hold  that  he  is  not  a  substitute  for  sinners  ?  "  Although  you 
advocate  an  entirely  different  view  from  the  one  just  published  by  your 
colleague,  it  is  a  little  remarkable  that  you  do  not  even  allude  to  his 
recent  production,  in  your  pa.mp\i[et published  by  the  request  of  the  students^ 

A  third  class  profess  to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  so  called. 
This  view  was  maintained  by  Calvin.  I  will  therefore  look  to  him  and 
his  followers  for  an  explanation  of  fhe  subject.  "  The  burden  of  damna- 
tion, from  which  we  were  delivered,  was  laid  upon  Christ  It  was 
requisite,  that  he  should  feel  the  severity  of  the  divine  vengeance,  in 
order  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God.  There  is  no  other  satisfaction  by 
which  God,  being  displeased,  may  be  made  favorable  and  appeased." 
The  pious  Calvinistic  Flavel  makes  these  declarations :  "  God  stood 
upon  full  satisfaction,  and  would  not  remit  one  sin  without  it.  The 
design  and  end  of  this  oblation  was  to  atone,  pacify,  and  reconcile  God, 
by  giving  him  a  full  and  adequate  compensation  or  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  his  elect.  To  wrath,  to  the  wrath  of  an  infinite  God  without 
mixture,  to  the  very  torments  of  hell,  was  Christ  delivered,  and  that  by 
the  hand  of  his  own  Father."  Soon  after  your  discourses  on  the  atone- 
ment were  well  before  the  public,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dana,  of  Newburyport, 
was  called  upon  to  deliver  an  ordination  sermon.  He  took  occasion  to 
mention  his  dissatisfaction  with  both  the  theories  which  had  been  advo- 
cated at  your  Seminary,  and  to  defend  the  old  Calvinistic  notion  of 
satisfaction.  The  leaders  of  your  party  soon  perceived,  that  unless 
something  was  speedily  done  to  keep  the  orthodox  community  quiet, 
there  would  be  an  open  theological  war  among  yourselves.  An  indi- 
vidual then  in  Andover  was  therefore  induced  to  write  a  review  of  the 
three  productions  for  the  New  Haven  Spectator.  He  endeavoured  to 
make  the  credulous  people  believe,  that  there  was  no  essential  dis- 
agreement between  the  several  writers  ;  and  that  the  apparent  differ- 
ence of  opinion  on  this  important  doctrine  was  more  in  words  and 
phraseology,  than  in  ideas.  But  all  this  deception  was  displeasing  to 
Dr.  Dana.  He  accordingly  addressed  a  communication  to  the  directors 
of  the  Spectator,  and  requested  its  insertion  in  a  forthcoming  number. 
This  request  being  denied,  he  went  on  himself,  but  was  unsuccessful 
in  obtaining  satisfaction.  Since  that  period,  great  caution  has  been 
observed  to  prevent  the  unlearned  from  suspecting  the  extent  of  the 
disagreement. 

A  fourth  class  profess  to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  infinite  atonement, 
so  called.  They  pretend,  that  sin  is  an  infinite  evil ;  and  consequently 
an  infinite  substitute  must  suffer  to  cancel  the  debt.  They  tlierefore 
declare  that  the  divine  nature  of  the  Saviour,  that  God  the  Son,  actually 
Buffered  and  died  for  the  sins  of  men.  But  would  they  remember,  tliat 
God  cannot  suffer  ;  would  they  recollect,  that  if  God  the  Son  could  so 
suffer  as  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  the  Father,  still  tliere  must  be  some 
other  God  to  suffer  in  order  to  satisfy  tlie  justice  of  God  the  Son  and 


LETTER  II.  125 

God  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  were  also  equally  offended  with  the  sinful- 
ness of  men,  I  think  they  would  say  nothing  further  about  an  infinite 
atonement. 

A  Jifth  class  profess  to  believe,  that  nothing  but  the  human  nature  of 
the  Son  suffered.  If  so,  this  leaves  no  atonement  at  all.  For  the 
sufferings  of  the  mere  man  Jesus  could  have  no  more  efficacy,  than  the 
sufferings  of  the  mere  man  Stephen.  The  thinking  portion  of  your 
denomination  are  getting  upon  this  ground  as  fast  as  possible.  This  is 
evidently  giving  up  the  whole  doctrine,  although  you  may  continue  to 
abuse  unitarians  for  the  same  belief.  There  are  others  of  your  party, 
who  know  not  what  to  believe  on  this  subject.  About  the  time  your 
publication  on  the  atonement  appeared,  one  of  your  pupils  presented 
himself  to  an  association  of  ministers  for  examination,  in  order  to  ob- 
tain a  license  lo  preach.  One  of  the  Reverend  gentlemen  asked  him 
three  several  times  to  state  his  views  on  the  atonement.  He  evaded 
the  question  each  time.  Afterwards  he  came  to  the  questioner  and 
apologized  for  his  apparent  rudeness.  Said  he,  "  It  does  not  do  for  us 
young  men  to  give  our  opinion  on  those  subjects,  upon  which  the 
Faculty  have  not  yet  come  to  an  agreement."  Whether  your  Faculty 
have  yet  come  to  an  agreement  on  this  doctrine,  or  not,  I  am  unable  to 
determine.  I  presume,  however,  the  dismission  of  one  of  your  Profes- 
sors may  have  contributed  to  restore  this  harmony.  If  I  have  departed 
from  the  literal  truth  in  any  of  the  statements  under  this  division,  the 
blame  must  rest  on  two  orthodox  ministers,  who  were  members  of  your 
institution  at  the  time  mentioned.  In  view  of  these  facts,  how  could 
you  quote  and  treat  the  extract  from  Dr.  Channing  as  you  have  done.^ 
Did  you  wish  to  awaken  the  prejudices  of  the  ignorant  against  him  .J* 
Did  you  not  know,  that  on  this  very  point  you  were  peculiarly  vulner- 
able ?  And  especially,  did  you  not  recollect,  that  a  publication  on  the 
8octrine  of  the  atonement,  by  the  Rev.  Noah  Worcester,  D.  D.,  had 
been  before  the  public  more  than  a  year ;  that  it  had  shaken  the  faith 
of  some  of  your  most  devoted  friends  ;  that  it  had  received  no  notice 
from  orthodox  writers  ;  and  that  it  is  regarded  as  a  complete  refutation 
of  your  views  of  the  subject,  and  altogether  unanswerable  ?  Such 
then  are  the  various  and  contradictory  systems  of  the  orthodox  on  the 
subject  of  the  atonement.  I  suppose  you  will  aver,  that  so  long  as  all 
classes  will  agree  to  use  the  word  atonement,  their  disagreement  in 
ideas  is  non-essential. 

4.  Agreement  in  Affection.  I  intended  to  notice  most  of  the  ortho- 
dox doctrines  in  a  similar  manner,  and  have  made  most  of  the  neces- 
sary selections  from  your  writers  for  this  purpose.  But  I  find  my  limits 
will  not  permit  this.  I  therefore  simply  assert,  that  the  disagreement 
among  your  leaders  is  equally  great  and  striking  on  the  subjects  of 
regeneration,  original  sin,  imputation,  irresistible  grace,  election  and 
reprobation,  salvation  and  punishment,  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 


126  LETTER  II. 

and  revivals  of  religion.  The  literal  fact  seems  to  be  this.  In  religious 
truth,  Andover  is  fifty  years  in"  advance  of  Bangor  and  Princeton ; 
New  Haven  and  New  York  arc  twenty-five  years  in  advance  of  Ando- 
ver ;  Cambridge  is  fifty  years  in  advance  of  New  Haven  ;  although  one 
of  your  students,  who  still  retains  his  orthodoxy,  assured  me  that  he 
had  no  doubt,  fifty  years  would  find  Andover  on  precisely  the  same 
standing  that  Cambridge  now  is,  so  far  as  the  pupils  were  concerned. 

Now  are  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  heartily  united  in  affection  ? 
You  are  divided  into  various  parties,  and  distinguished  by  several  sec- 
tarian names.  There  are  the  old,  the  new,  the  moderate,  and  the  rigid 
Calvinists.  There  are  the  Hopkinsians,  the  Presbyterians,  and  the 
Congregationalists  ;  and  still  you  wish  all  to  be  included  in  the  orthodox 
denomination.  There  are  among  you  great  envyings,  and  jealousies, 
and  enmities.  Go  among  the  adherents  of  Bangor  and  Princeton  Theo- 
logical Seminaries,  and  you  hear  the  most  severe  denunciations  against 
Andover  and  New  Haven.  1  speak  from  personal  acquaintance  with 
this  subject.  Go  among  the  adherents  of  Andover ;  and  you  hear  the 
New  Haven  and  New  York  divines  severely  censured.  One  of  your 
ministers  was  asked  by  a  unitarian,  what  he  thought  of  the  New  Haven 
Professors  ?  He  returned  the  following  answer  :  "  We  think  they  are 
perverting  the  Scriptures  much  worse  than  the  unitarians.^''  And  what 
does  the  New  Haven  Spectator  say  of  your  friend.  Dr.  Woods,  on 
account  of  his  late  Letters  to  Dr.  T.iylor  ?  I  will  select  a  few  passages. 
The  reviewer  declares,  that  "  Dr.  Woods's  Letters  abound  in  remarks, 
which  are  not  only  irrelevant  to  the  point  at  issue,  but  personal  and 
invidious  in  a  high  degree  ;"  that  "  he  has  held  out  to  view  two  oppos- 
ing parties,  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  friends  on  one  side,  and  the  orthodox  on 
the  other  ; "  that  "  not  content  with  calling  in  question  the  ortliodoxy 
of  Dr.  Taylor,  he  has  actually  held  him  forth  as  identified,  no  one 
knows  to  what  extent,  with  the  unitarian  party ;  and  addresses  th# 
man,  whom  he  has  thus  arraigned  before  the  churches,  as  an  affection- 
ate brother^  and  a  respected  and  beloved  brother  ; "  that  "  he  has,  with- 
out the  shadow  of  a  reason,  struck  a  direct  blow  at  every  thing  that  is 
valuable  in  the  character  of  Dr.  Taylor,  as  a  man,  a  minister  of  the 
gospel,  and  an  instructer  of  youth ; "  that  "  he  has  extended  the  same 
system  of  attack,  by  surmise  and  insinuation,  to  the  whole  body  of  Dr. 
Taylor's  pupils,  and  to  all,  who  may  agree  with  bun  in  his  theological 
opinions  ; "  that  "  he  prefers  a  direct  charge  against  Dr.  Taylor  and  his 
friends,  that  their  sentiments  are  likdy  to  result  in  tlie  utter  abandon- 
ment of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  at  last  in  infidelity;''^ 
that  "the  personal  incivility  which  pervades  these  Letters  is  without  a 
parallel  in  our  churches  during  the  last  thirty  years."  And  notwith- 
standing all  this.  Dr.  Beecher  could  make  the  observation,  to  be  Uken 
and  circulated  by  the  smaller  men  of  tlie  party,  that  there  was  little  or 
no  disagreement  between  Andover  and  New  Haven;  but  that  the 
friendly  discussion  related  to  the  philosophy  of  religion. 


LETTER  II.  127 

And  what  have  the  leading"  Calvinists  said  of  you,  Hopkinsians  ? 
Take  a  few  extracts  which  have  been  published  by  Dr.  Ely  of  Phila- 
delphia. The  Doctor  himself  observes,  when  speaking  of  some  Calvin- 
istic  creeds,  "The  Hopkinsians,  Sabellians,  Arians,  and  Socinians 
cannot  be  expected  to  like  them.  Any  person  who  maintains  either  of 
these  heresies  has  departed  from  the  faith  of  the  pious  fathers  ofJVeio 
England^  The  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  of  Princeton,  observes,  when  speak- 
ing of  some  extracts  from  Hopkinsian  writers  ;  That  this  "  assortment 
of  the  religious  emrors  and  absurdities  of  certain  writers  in  our  country, 
who  have  gained  a  reputation,  far  beyond  what  nonsense  and  impiety 
should  acquire  for  a  divine.  And  I  am  persuaded,  that  these  profound 
divines  are  preparing  the  way  for  a  more  extensive  diffusion  of  infidel 
principles,  and  even  of  atheism  in  our  country^  The  Rev.  Mr. 
M'Niece,  of  New  York,  declares,  that  Hopkinsian  sentiments  are  at 
war  with  the  philosophy  of  the  human  mind,  with  common  sense,  and 
with  the  word  of  the  living  God^  The  Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  of  New  York, 
declares  that  Hopkinsianism  is  "  indeed  another  gospel  in  some  very 
material  points."  But  there  is  no  end  to  the  quotations  I  could  make 
to  show  the  real  divisions  and  dissentions  which  now  exist  among  the 
leaders  of  the  orthodox.  Sir,  I  must  speak  with  plainness.  All  this 
pretended  union  and  harmony  among'  your  leaders  is  a  deception.  You 
agree  heartily  in  but  three  particulars.  First,  in  using  certain  loords, 
while  you  attach  to  them  very  different  ideas.  Secondly,  in  making  a 
human  creed  instead  of  the  Bible  your  standard  of  religious  truth. 
And,  thirdly,  in  denouncing  and  condemning  those  who  will  not  yield 
to  your  dictation.  In  truth,  there  is  any  thing  but  agreement  among 
you  in  sentiment,  and,  judging  from  your  writings,  but  little  in  affec- 
tion. I  will  conclude  this  head  with  merely  one  extract  from  a  letter 
lately  written  by  an  orthodox  divine  of  eminence,  moderation,  and  can- 
dor. I  hope  he  will  not  be  offended  with  this  liberty,  for  his  remarks 
seem  too  important  to  be  withheld  from  the  public.  Speaking  of  your- 
self, and  of  the  impression  received  on  reading  your  Letter,  he  thus 
observes : 

"His  theory  of  religious  liberty  appeared  to  me  sound  and  good. 
But  I  was  surprised,  that  he  should  maintain  boldly,  that  the  conduct 
of  the  orthodox  is  in  full  accordance  with  that  theory.  For  I  had  known 
something  of  his  own  sufferings  from  the  illiberality  of  both  the  South 
and  the  North.  I  knew  the  long-standing,  yet  unjust  suspicions  of  his 
orthodoxy,  which  have  seemed  to  give  him  much  disquietude  ;  and 
which  perhaps  have  induced  him  to  stand  forth,  from  time  to  time,  as 
the  bold  champion  of  the  orthodox,  and  to  lash  the  unitarians,  especially, 
with  all  his  might.  I  recollected  his  controversy  with  Dr.  Miller  on  the 
sonship  of  Christ,  and  with  Dr.  Carnahan  respecting  the  American 
Education  Society  ;  in  both  of  which,  I  supposed,  Mr.  Stuart  would  feel 
there  was  some  want  of  liberality  and  Christian  charity  in  his  adver- 


128  LETTER  H. 

saries.  The  latter,  especially,  is  full  proof  of  the  want  of  harmony  and 
mutual  confidence  between  the  North  and  South.  I  called  to  mind  the 
late  commotions  among  the  ortliodox,  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  and  the  singular  part  Mr.  Stuart  himself  acted  in  that  dis- 
pute. I  looked  at  the  existing  civil  war,  respecting  the  New  Haven 
theology ;  and  the  book  which  Dr.  Woods  was  writing  against  Dr. 
Taylor,  at  the  very  time  Mr.  Stuart  was  publishing  his  Letter,  and  in 
which  Dr.  Woods  is  thought  to  have  manifested  an  unchristian  and 
ungentle  manly  spirit.  Of  that  book,  and  of  the  whole  history  of  the 
controversy,  Mr.  Stuart  could  hardly  be  ignorant,  as  he  is  known  to  be 
claimed  by  both  parties,  though  he  probably  has  not  the  full  confidence 
of  either.  I  also  recollected  the  many  orthodox  and  useful  ministers, 
who  have  felt  themselves  injured  by  the  illiberal  surmises  and  the  secret 
machinations  of  certain  leading  men.  These  and  otlier  topics  suggest- 
ed to  my  mind  numerous  facts,  which  I  supposed  should  have  led  any 
man,  who  was  as  well  acquainted  with  them  as  Mr.  Stuart,  to  beware 
of  the  broad  and  unqualified  assertions  contained  in  his  book." 

III.    Principles  a.nd   Doctrines  of  the  Pilgrims. 

Many  individuals  of  your  denomination  have  endeavoured  to  make 
the  unlearned  part  of  the  community  believe  the  three  following  state- 
ments respecting  our  Pilgrim  fathers.  Ftrst^  that  the  orthodox  observe 
the  same  governing  principles.  Secondly,  that  they  believe  the  same 
religious  doctnnes.  And,  thirdly,  that  unitarians  have  renounced  both  their 
principles  and  doctrines,  and  are  laboring  for  their  destruction.  I  per- 
ceive, much  to  my  astonishment,  that  you  have  advanced  the  same  senti- 
ments. Three  quotations  from  your  letter  will  prove  the  truth  of  this  as- 
sertion. My  first  will  relate  to  the  principles  of  the  Pilgrims.  Here  it  is. 
"  The  orthodox  are  not  to  he  diverted  from  their  purpose,  by  language  of 
severe  reproach  and  unmeasured  indignation.  The  sons  of  those,  who 
left  country  and  kindred  to  brave  the  storms  of  the  ocean  in  frail  barks, 
to  face  the  gloomy  horrors  of  the  wintry  blasts  and  storms,  in  a  savage 
land  and  in  a  boundless  forest  and  who  did  all  this  cheerfully  that  thoy 
might  hold  fast  the  orthodox  faith,  and  worship  God  according  to  it  — 
the  sons  of  such  men,  holding  to  the  same  principles,  and  believing  them 
to  be  the  only  founilation  of  their  eternal  hopes —  are  not  to  be  diverted 
from  their  course  by  obloquy  and  denunciation,  however  eloquent  and 
severe."  You  here  assert  that  the  orthodox  hold  the  principles  of 
the  Pilgrim  fathers.  My  next  passage  will  relate  to  their  opinions  or 
religious  doctrines.  Here  it  is.  "  The  orthodox  do  not  understand 
why  they  have  not  the  liberty  of  defending  the  opinions  which  their 
ancestors  held,  in  case  they  do  sincerely  accord  with  them.  That  they 
do  sincerely  agree,  they  openly  profess  and  avow ;  and  neither  yourself, 
nor  any  man  on  earth,  has  a  right  to  call  this  in  question."  I,  Sir,  am 
the  man  who  will  call  this  agreement  in  question  before  I  finish  this 
topic.     My  last  quotation  will  relate  to  the  conduct  of  unitarians  in  la- 


LETTER  II.  129 

boring  to  destroy  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  Pilgrims.  "  The 
orthodox  have  as  good  a  right  to  maintain  the  doctrines  of  the  Pilgrims 
as  unitarians  have  to  assail  them."  Now  are  these  three  propositions 
true  ?  I  think  not.  And  I  believe  the  statements  I  shall  now  make 
will  prove  at  least  four  particulars. 

1.  Principles  of  the  Pilgrims,  Who  were  the  Pilgrim  fathers  ? 
Those  surely,  who  landed  on  Plymouth  rock  in  1620.  And  those  cer- 
tainly, who  afterwards  commenced  settlements  at  Salem,  and  Charles- 
town,  and  Boston.  This  answer  is  sufficiently  explicit  for  my  present 
purpose.  And  by  what  grand  principles  did  they  profess  to  be  governed 
in  their  religious  and  ecclesiastical  concerns?  Four  of  the  most  im- 
portant I  will  now  describe.  What  then  was  the^rs^  great  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  the  Pilgrim  fathers  ?  "  The  advancement  of  the 
Reformation."  They  earnestly  desired  to  obtain  more  truth  from 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  You  will  demand  proof  of  this  assertion.  I  give 
it  you  in  the  words  of  the  venerable  John  Robinson.  You  well  know 
that  he  was  the  pastor  of  those,  who  came  to  Plymouth  in  the  first  ves- 
sel. You  also  know  that  he  gave  them  an  affecting  farewell  address 
when  parting  from  their  friend  and  minister.  You  likewise  know  that 
this  Christian  speech  contains  the  fundamental  principles  of  action  by 
which  the  first  emigrants  were  governed.  Here  you  have  the  words  of 
this  eloquent  discourse,  which  manifests  the  true  spirit  of  the  Pilgrims. 

'*  Brethren,  we  are  now  quickly  to  part  from  one  another,  and  wheth- 
er I  may  ever  live  to  see  your  face  on  earth  any  more,  the  God  of  hea- 
ven only  knows ;  but  whether  the  Lord  has  appointed  that  or  no,  I 
charge  you  before  God  and  his  blessed  angels,  that  you  follow  me  no  far- 
ther than  you  have  seen  me  follow  Jesus  Christ.  If  God  reveal  any  thing 
to  you,  by  any  other  instrument  of  his,  be  as  ready  to  receive  it  as  ever 
you  were  to  receive  any  truth  by  my  ministry  ;  for  lam  verily  persuaded^ 
I  am  very  confident,  the  Lord  has  more  truth  yet  to  break  forth  out  of  his 
holy  word.  For  my  part  I  cannot  sufficiently  bewail  the  condition  of  the 
reformed  churches,  who  are  come  to  a  period  in  religion,  and  will  go  at 
present  no  farther  than  the  instruments  of  their  reformation.  The  Luther- 
ans cannot  be  drawn  to  go  beyond  what  Luther  saw.  Whatever  part 
of  his  will  our  God  has  revealed  to  Calvin,  they  will  rather  die  than 
embrace  it.  And  the  Calvinists,  you  see,  stick  fast  where  they  were 
lefl  by  that  great  man  of  God,  who  yet  saw  not  all  things.  This  is  a 
great  misery  much  to  be  lamented ;  for  though  they  were  burning  and 
shining  lights  in  their  times,  yet  they  penetrated  not  into  the  whole 
counsel  of  God,  but  were  they  now  living,  would  be  as  willing  to  em- 
brace further  light  as  that  which  they  first  received.  /  beseech  yoUf 
remember,  it  is  an  article  of  your  church  covenant,  that  you  be  ready  to 
receive  whatever  truth  shall  be  made  known  to  you  from  the  written  word 
of  God.  Remember  that,  and  every  other  article  of  your  covenant. 
But  I  must  herewithal  exhort  you  to  take  heed  what  you  receive  as 
17 


130  LETTER  II. 

truth  ;  examine  it ;  consider  it,  and  compare  it  with  other  Scriptures  of 
truth,  before  you  receive  it ;  for  it  is  not  possible  the  Christian  world 
come  so  lately  out  of  such  thick  antichnstian  darkness,  and  tfuit  perfec- 
tion of  knowledge  shoxdd  break  forth  at  once." 

Now  what  are  the  leadinjj  sentiments  of  this  farewell  address  of  the 
Father  of  the  Pilgrims?  TWo  things  are  greatly  to  be  lamented  ;  tliat 
the  Calvinistic  churcli  in  the  old  world  had  come  to  a  period  in  religion, 
and  that  Calvinists  would  proceed  no  farther  in  the  path  of  truth  than 
their  Genevan  master  led  the  way.  Two  things  are  stated  as  undeni- 
able facts  ;  that  the  Reformers  could  not  have  discovered  all  truth,  and 
that  much  more  remained  to  break  forth  from  God's  word.  Three  du- 
ties are  solemnly  enjoined ;  that  the  Pilgrims  were  not  to  follow  any 
human  authority,  any  farther  than  it  coincided  with  the  teachings  of 
Christ  Jesus  ;  that  the  Scriptures  were  to  be  their  only  standard  of  re- 
ligious faith  ;  and  that  they  were  to  receive  information  from  whatever 
source  it  might  be  offered.  And  why  were  these  statements  made  in 
the  last,  sad,  solemn,  afflicting  moment  of  separation  ?  Simply  to  remind 
the  departing,  that  the  advancement  of  the  Reform^dion  toas  the  primary 
object  of  their  pilgrimage.  And  which  denomination  adheres  most  firmly 
to  this  great  essential  principle  of  the  first  Pilgrim  fathers  ?  Let  facts 
decide. 

Does  the  orthodox  denomination  endeavour  to  promote  the  advance- 
ment of  the  Reformation?  No  ;  look  into  the  constitution  of  your  theo- 
logical seminary.  You  there  learn,  that  it  was  tlie  intention  of  the 
founders  to  endow  an  institution  for  the  support  and  dissemination  of 
principle  sstrictly  Calvinistic,  as  they  are  contained  in  the  Assembly's  Cat' 
echism.  You  will  recollect  that  this  catechism  was  framed  some  twenty 
years  after  the  settlement  of  the  old  colony.  Had  those  wrangling 
divines  obtained  all  the  light  that  was  to  break  forth  from  God's  holy 
word  ?  Look  also  at  your  solemn  obligations.  You  will  remember 
that  you  are  bound  never  to  alter  the  least  expression  of  a  human  creed, 
which  professes  to  be  founded  on  this  said  Catechism.  Does  this  look 
like  being  at  liberty  to  embrace  new  truths  ?  Look  also  at  your  churches. 
You  have  fettered  them  down  in  the  same  manner ;  and  those  who  will 
not  make  this  creed  of  the  dark  ages  their  standard  of  religious  truth 
must  be  excluded  from  your  communion.  Look  likewise  at  your  de- 
nunciations of  unitarians,  because  they  follow  the  Scriptures  instead  of 
Calvin  and  the  Pilgrims.  In  short,  look  at  the  various  measures  of  your 
leaders,  for  binding  down  the  present  generation  to  the  Calvinistic  arti- 
cles of  the  Assembly's  Catechism  ;  and  your  manifold  instruments  of 
persecution,  for  all  who  will  not  acknowledge  your  infallibility.  Every 
child  must  perceive,  that  your  denomination  violates  this  fundamental 
principle  of  our  Pilgrim  fathers,  openly,  palpably,  and  systematically  ; 
and  that  all  your  exertions  are  directed  to  prevent  the  advancement  of 
the  reformation. 


LETTER  II.  131 

Does  the  unitarian  denomination  endeavour  to  promote  the  advance- 
ment of  the  reformation  ?  Surely  so.  Is  it  not  for  this  very  purpose, 
that  they  banish  all  human  creeds  from  their  churches  and  theological 
seminaries  ?  Is  it  not  for  this  very  purpose,  that  they  urge  all  classes 
to  search  the  Scriptures  with  earnestness  and  honesty  and  boldness  ?  Is 
it  not  for  this  very  purpose,  that  they  grant  the  Christian  name  and 
rights  and  privileges  to  all  who  make  the  Bible  the  sufficient  and  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  Is  it  not  for  this  very  purpose,  that  they  re- 
print the  best  edition  of  the  original  records  of  our  faith,  and  encourage 
new  translations  of  the  sacred  writings  ?  Is  it  not  for  this  very  purpose, 
that  they  regard  no  human  authority,  either  living  or  dead,  as  of  any 
value  farther  than  it  coincides  with  the  instructions  of  the  divine  stand- 
ard ?  Is  it  not  for  this  very  purpose,  that  they  encounter  the  obloquy 
and  reproaches  and  persecutions  of  the  orthodox  denomination?  Could 
they  adopt  any  measures  more  effectual  for  accomplishing  this  impor- 
tant purpose?  No;  you  will  certainly  admit,  that  the  unitaran  denom- 
ination adhere  most  scrupuously  to  this  fundamental  principle  of  the 
Pilgrim  fathers ;  and  that  all  their  exertions  are  directed  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  reformation. 

And  what  was  the  second  grand  principle  of  the  Pilgrim  fathers  ? 
*'  Open  coMMUiNioN."  A  good  authority  thus  observes.  "  While  they 
take  care,  according  to  apostolic  injunction,  that  all  things  be  done  de- 
cently and  in  order,  it  is  their  duty  not  to  impose  any  thing ,  by  way  of 
subscription  or  declaration  of  faith,  upon  those  who  desire  admission  to  the 
ordinances,  which  may  not  be  consciensciously  complied  with  by  sincere  Chris- 
tians of  all  denominations.''''  Your  friend.  Dr.  Hawes,  has  also  declared 
that  the  Pilgrims  "  acted  on  the  principle  of  open  communion ;  making  evi- 
dence of  Christian  character  the  only  condition  of  fellowship ! "  I  Ihank 
the  gentleman  for  what  little  truth  his  tHbute  contains.  I  suppose  this 
evidence  is  sufficient ;  but  I  choose  to  advance  more.  I  will  give  you  a 
specimen  of  covenants  adopted  by  our  Pilgrim  fathers,  to  convince  you, 
that  they  did  not  hedge  up  the  entrance  to  the  Lord's  table  with  doc- 
trinal tests  and  human  standards  of  divine  truth  ;  but  that  they  opened 
the  door  to  all  sincere  Christians  of  every  denomination.  The  church 
first  planted  in  Plymouth  was  organized  before  they  reached  our 
shores.  The  covenant  they  then  adopted  has  not  been  preserved.  But 
about  fifty  years  after  their  landing,  a  public  fast  was  held,  and  they  re- 
newed their  covenant  engagements.  The  records  of  the  church  thus 
read.  "  A  church  covenant  was  read ;  and  the  church  vote<l  that  it 
should  be  left  on  record  as  that  which  they  did  own  to  be  the  sub- 
stance of  that  covenant,  tchick  their  fathers  entered  into  at  the  first  gather- 
ing of  the  church;  which  was  in  the  words  following. 

"  In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  obedience  to  his  holy 
ordinances,  we  being  by  the  most  wise  and  good  proridence  of  God 
brought  together  in  this  place,  and  desirous  to  unite  ourselves  into 


133  LETTER  II. 

one  congregation  or  churchy  under  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  our  Head,  that 
we  may  be  in  such  root  as  becometh  all  those  whom  he  Iiath  redeemed 
and  sanctified  to  iiimself,  we  do  hereby  solemnly  and  religiously,  as  in 
his  most  holy  presence,  avouch  the  Lord  Jehovah,  the  only  true  God, 
to  be  our  God  and  the  God  of  ours  ;  and  do  promise  and  bind  ourselves 
to  walk  in  all  our  ways  according  to  the  rule  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  all 
sincere  conformity  to  his  holy  ordinances,  and  in  mutual  love  to,  and 
watchfulness  over  one  another,  depending  wholly  and  only  upon  the 
Lord  our  God  to  enable  us  by  his  grace  hereunto." 

The  first  congregational  church  organized  in  this  country  was  at 
Salem,  and  that  must  be  regarded  as  the  parent  of  all  the  independent 
churches  of  New  England.  I  will  therefore  give  you  the  covenant 
adopted  by  that  body  at  its  formation. 

*'  We  covenant  with  our  Lord,  and  one  with  another  ;  and  we  do  bind 
ourselves  in  the  presence  of  God,  to  walk  together  in  all  his  ways,  ac- 
cording as  he  is  pleased  to  reveal  himself  unto  us  in  his  blessed  word 
of  truth ;  and  do  explicitly,  in  the  name  and  fear  of  God,  profess  and 
protest  to  walk  as  followeth,  through  the  power  and  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  We  avouch  the  Lord  to  be  our  God,  and  ourselves  to 
be  his  people,  in  the  truth  and  simplicity  of  our  spirits.  We  give  our- 
selves to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  word  of  his  grace,  for  the  teach- 
ing, ruling,  and  sanctifying  of  us  in  matters  of  worship  and  conversation, 
resolving  to  cleave  unto  him  alone  for  life  and  glory,  and  to  reject  all 
contrary  ways,  canons,  and  constitutions  of  men  in  his  worship.  We 
promise  to  walk  with  our  brethren,  with  all  watchfulness  and  tender- 
ness, avoiding  jealousies  and  suspicions,  back-biting,  censurings,  pro- 
vokings,  secret  rising  of  spirit  against  them ;  but  in  all  offences  to  fol- 
low the  rule  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  bear  and  forbear,  give 
and  forgive,  as  he  hath  taught  us.  In  public  or  private,  we  will  wil- 
lingly do  nothing  to  the  offence  of  the  church ;  but  will  be  willing  to 
take  advice  for  ourselves  and  ours,  as  occasion  shall  be  presented. 
We  will  not  in  the  congregation  be  forward  either  to  show  our  own 
gifls  and  parts  in  speaking  or  scrupling,  or  there  discover  the  weakness 
or  failings  of  our  brethren  ;  but  attend  an  orderly  call  thereunto,  know- 
ing how  much  the  Lord  may  be  dishonored,  and  his  gospel,  and  the 
profession  of  it,  slighted  by  our  distempers  and  weaknesses  in  public. 
We  bind  ourselves  to  study  the  advancement  of  the  gospel  in  all  truth 
and  peace  ;  both  in  regard  to  those  that  are  within  and  without,  no  way 
slighting  our  sister  churches,  but  using  their  counsel,  as  need  shall 
be  ;  not  laying  a  stumbling-block  before  any,  no,  not  the  Indians,  whose 
good  we  desire  to  promote  ;  and  so  to  converse,  as  we  may  avoid  the 
very  appearance  of  evil.  We  do  hereby  promise  to  carry  ourselves  in 
all  lawful  obedience  to  those  thp.t  are  over  us,  in  church  or  common- 
wealth, knowing  how  well  pleasing  it  will  be  to  the  Lord,  that  they 
should  have  encouragement  in  their  places,  by  our  not  grieving  their 


LETTER  II.  1  33 

spirits  through  our  irregularities.  We  resolve  to  approve  ourselves  to 
the  Lord  in  our  particular  callings  ;  shunning  idleness,  as  the  bane  of 
any  state  ;  nor  will  we  deal  hardly  or  oppressingly  with  any,  wherein  we 
are  the  Lord's  stewards.  Promising  also  unto  our  best  ability  to  teach 
our  children  and  servants  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  his  will,  that 
they  may  serve  him  also ;  and  all  this  not  by  any  strength  of  our  own, 
but  by  the  Lord  Christ ;  whose  blood  we  desire  may  sprinkle  this  our 
covenant  made  in  his  name." 

Take  next  the  covenant  adopted  at  the  formation  of  the  first  chuch 
in  Boston. 

"  In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  obedience  to  his  holy 
will  and  divine  ordinance,  we,  whose  names  are  here  underwritten, 
being  by  his  most  wise  and  good  providence  brought  together  into  this 
part  of  America,  in  the  bay  of  Massachusetts,  and  desirous  to  unite 
into  one  congregation  or  church,  under  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  our  head, 
in  such  sort  as  becometh  all  those,  whom  he  hath  redeemed  and  sancti- 
fied to  himself,  do  hereby  solemnly  and  religiously,  as  in  his  most  holy 
presence,  promise  and  bind  ourselves  to  walk  in  all  our  ways  according 
to  the  rule  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  all  sincere  conformity  to  his  holy 
ordinances,  and  in  mutual  love  and  respect  to  each  other  so  near,  as 
God  shall  give  us  grace." 

My  limits  will  not  permit  me  to  introduce  any  more  of  the  covenants 
of  our  Pilgrim  fathers.  Now  you  will  notice  several  remarkable  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  these  creeds.  First,  you  do  not  find  one  pe- 
culiarity of  orthodoxy  in  any  of  them  ;  nothing  but  what  every  unitarian 
can  heartily  subscribe.  And  this  must  convince  you,  that  they  wished 
to  exclude  no  believer  of  good  morals  from  their  communion.  Secondly, 
you  observe,  that  our  fathers  used  the  words  congregation  and  church 
as  synonymous ;  as  meaning  one  and  the  same  body.  You  finally 
remark,  how  much  more  anxious  these  Christians  were  to  bind  them- 
selves to  a  faithful  discharge  of  Christian  duty,  than  to  fetter  their 
minds  with  a  doctrinal  test,  or  set  up  a  human  standard  of  truth.  And 
all  this  for  what  purpose  ?  To  promote  open  communion.  Now  which 
denomination  adheres  most  firmly  to  this  principle  of  our  Pilgrim 
fathers  ? 

Does  the  orthodox  denomination  practice  upon  this  principle  of  open 
communion  ?  No  ;  instead  of  these  simple  and  Scriptural  covenants, 
which  you  dare  not  introduce  into  your  religious  bodies  ;  you  have 
framed  long,  doctrinal,  metaphysical  creeds ;  and  you  have  raised  them 
up  before  the  Christian  ordinances,  so  that  all  who  will  not  bow  down 
to  your  idols,  must  be  excluded  from  the  Lord's  table.  You  have  not 
made  evidence  of  Christian  character  your  only  condition  of  fellow- 
ship ;  for  one  of  your  Connecticut  ministers  declared,  "  that  he  could 
no  more  commune  with  him  who  denied  the  supreme  deity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  than  with  a  Pagan  or  Musselman."    Not  only  so.    Your  invita- 


134  LETTER  II. 

tions  at  the  time  of  communion  are  thoroughly  exclusive.  Two  forms 
I  have  known  used.  One  is  this.  "  Members  of  sister  churches  in 
fellowship  with  this  church,  are  invited  to  commune  with  us."  The  other 
is  this.  ''  All  members  of  other  churches  who  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Almighty  God,  are  invited  to  commemorate  his  sufferings  and 
death."  But  this  is  not  all.  Your  ministers  have  stood  before  the 
Lord's  table,  and  declared  that  the  ordinance  was  instituted  to  com- 
memorate the  divinity  of  Christ;  and  that  all  who  did  not  believe  him 
to  be  God,  could  not  partake  worthily.  They  have  done  this,  when 
they  knew  that  some  of  the  most  intelligent  Christians  present  were 
unitarians,  and  thus  have  designedly  driven  them  from  the  feast  of  love. 
All  these  circumstances  and  many  more  of  a  similar  character  fully 
prove,  that  the  orthodox  denomination  violate  this  second  grand  principle 
of  the  Pilgrims,  openly,  palpably,  and  systematically  ;  and  that  all  possi- 
ble exertions  are  used  to  prevent  any  from  coming  to  the  Lord's  table, 
unless  they  will  assent  to  the  articles  of  a  human  standard. 

And  does  the  unitarian  denomination  observe  this  principle  of  the 
Pilgrim^athers  ?  Yes  ;  they  have  no  human  doctrinal  creeds  to  keep 
conscientious  believers  from  their  communion.  Since  so  many  of  the 
churches  of  the  fathers  have  fallen  into  their  hands,  they  have  been 
raking  up  their  first  covenants,  and  restoring  them  to  their  proper 
and  former  standing.  When  unitarian  ministers  give  out  their  invita- 
tion to  strangers,  it  is  frequently  in  this  form.  "  Members  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  of  v/hatever  name  or  denomination,  are  cordially  invited 
to  partake  with  us  at  the  table  of  our  common  Lord."  When  assembled 
at  the  feast  of  our  Lord,' we  dare  not  drive  from  his  table  any  guests 
who  have  thought  proper  to  comply  w^ith  his  invitation.  In  short,  we 
make  evidence  of  Christian  character  our  only  condition  of  fellowship. 
And,  so  long  as  a  believer  takes  the  Bible  for  his  guide  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  exhibits  a  Christian  character,  he  is  cordially  wel- 
comed to  our  celebration  of  the  ordinances.  In  this  way,  we  adhere 
most  firmly  to  this  principle  of  our  Pilgrim  fathers  ;  and  take  special 
care,  "  not  to  impose  any  thing,  by  way  of  subscription  or  declaration 
of  faith,  upon  those  who  desire  admission  to  the  ordinances,  which 
may  not  be  conscientiously  complied  with  by  sincere  Christians  of  all 
denominations." 

And  what  was  the  third  grand  fundamental  principle  of  our  Pilgrim 
fathers?  "The  perfect  independence  of  every  congregational 
CHURCH."  This  right  they  guarded  with  extreme  jealousy.  When 
the  first  pastor  was  ordained  in  Salem,  a  deputation  arrived  from  the 
first  church  in  Plymouth.  They  were  allowed  to  take  no  part  in  the 
services,  except  to  give  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  And  before  the 
person  could  do  this,  he  was  obliged  to  declare,  "  that  no  inference 
should  ever  be  drawn  from  it  in  support  of  the  idea,  that  tliere  was  the 
least  dependence  whatever  in  this  church  upon  others,  or  the  least 
jurisdiction  over  it  in  any  external  body,  or  the  least  necessary  con- 


LETTER  II.  135 

nexion  between  this  and  other  churches  wherever  it  might  be.*'  So 
in  the  first  church  in  Woburn.  They  were  about  to  ordain  a  pastor. 
Delegates  from  other  churches  were  present ;  but  fearing  they  might 
claim  some  jurisdiction  over  them,  they  were  not  allowed  to  take  any 
part  in  the  exercises.  They  preferred  doing  the  whole  themselves, 
though  the  services  should  not  be  so  well  performed.  You  thus  per- 
ceive what  the  pilgrims  understood  by  the  independence  of  the  churches. 
Now,  which  denomination  has  adhered  most  closely  to  this  sacred 
principle  of  our  ancestors  ? 

Does  the  orthodox  denomination  scrupulously  guard  the  independ- 
ence of  the  churches  ?  No  ;  look  at  the  consociations  in  Connecticut. 
They  destroy  this  principle  as  effectually  as  presbyterianism  or 
episcopalianism.  Not  a  church  has  the  least  independence  left.  All 
have  virtually  abandoned  the  congregational  order.  Look  next  at  the 
various  attempts  to  introduce  the  same  system  of  slavery  into  the 
churches  of  this  Commonwealth.  And  even  at  this  moment,  your  con- 
ferences of  churches  virtually  destroy  the  independence  of  particular 
churches.  The  pilgrims  would  no  more  have  allowed  such  a  combina- 
tion, than  they  would  have  yielded  to  the  Pope  of  Rome.  And,  lastly, 
your  measures  to  prevent  ministerial  intercourse  with  unitarians  are 
utterly  subversive  of  the  rights  of  individual  pastors  and  churches.  So 
that  every  one  must  readily  perceive,  that  the  leaders  of  your  party 
openly,  palpably,  and  systematically,  violate  this  third  fundamental 
principle  of  the  Pilgrims  ;  and  use  all  their  influence  to  bring  the  con- 
gregational churches  into  spiritual  subjection. 

And  does  the  unitarian  denominatian  observe  this  dearly  cherished 
principle  of  the  fathers  ?  Yes  ;  can  you  produce  an  instance  in  which 
they  have  infringed  the  independency  of  any  church  ?  Have  they  not 
uniformly  opposed  the  attempts  of  the  orthodox  to  introduce  the  en- 
slaving system  of  consociations  ?  Is  not  each  church  in  their  order 
perfectly  independent,  having  no  connexion  whatever  with  any  other 
body,  transacting  all  its  own  concerns  in  its  own  way  ?  This  you  must 
admit.  And,  consequently,  every  one  will  grant  that  the  unitarians 
have  sacredly  observed  the  third  Principle  of  the  pilgrims,  and  ever 
done  all  in  their  power  to  prevent  the  orthodox  churches  from  falling 
into  servitude. 

And  what  was  the  fourth  principle  of  the  Pilgrims.  "  The  perfect 
EQUALITY  OF  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES."  Each  church  was  liter- 
ally independent  of  all  others.  Still  all  were  acknowledged  to  be  on 
an  equal  standing.  Each  one  respected  the  sacred  rights  of  all  the 
others.  Each  one  endeavoured  to  do  unto  others  as  it  would  have  the 
others  do  unto  itself.  When  members  removed  from  one  town  to  an- 
other, they  were  cheerfully  dismissed  and  cordially  recommended  to 
the  fellowship  of  the  churches  in  the  place  of  their  new  residence.  In 
this  way  the  perfect  equality  of  congregational  churches  was  pre- 


136  LETTER  11. 

served.    Now  which  denomination  adheres  most  rigidly  to  this  princi- 
ple of  our  Pilgrim  fathers  ? 

Does  the  orthodox  denomination  sacredly  guard  the  equality  of  con- 
gregational churches  ?  No ;  leaders  of  your  party  have  visited  the 
church  members  of  their  ministerial  brethren,  endeavoured  to  preju- 
dice them  against  their  present  pastor,  urged  them  to  recede  from  his 
communion  and  form  themselves  into  a  new  church.  When  members 
from  your  churches  have  removed  into  other  towns,  and  requested  a 
dismission,  and  a  recommendation  to  the  congregational  church  in  the 
place  of  their  residence,  their  request  has  been  absolutely  refused  ; 
and  they  have  been  assured  that  their  former  brethren  would  regard 
such  a  transfer  of  their  relations  as  manifestly  unsafe  and  sinful.  In 
short,  look  at  all  the  cases  I  have  recorded,  and  tell  me,  if  you  can 
reconcile  such  proceedings  with  a  rigid  maintenance  of  the  equality  of 
the  churches  ?  No  ;  every  person  must  perceive  that  the  fourth  fun- 
damental principle  of  our  pilgrim  fathers  is  openly,  palpably,  and  sys- 
tematically violated  by  the  orthodox  denomination ;  and  that  your 
leaders  are  exerting  all  their  influence  to  destroy  the  equality  of  con- 
gregational churches. 

Does  the  unitarian  denomination  observe  this  sacred  principle  of  the 
fathers?  Yes;  they  have  regarded  the  parishes  of  their  ministerial 
brethren  as  sacred  ground.  They  have  urged  unitarian  minorities  in 
such  societies  to  keep  quiet,  to  pay  their  ministerial  taxes,  to  attend 
the  orthodox  preaching,  and  to  submit  peaceably  to  orthodox  usurpa- 
tions of  their  rights.  They  have  lent  their  aid  to  new  societies  when 
regularly  organized  ;  but  have  discouraged  the  formation  of  unitarian 
churches  where  the  orthodox  ministers  would  exchange  with  unitari- 
ans. And  when  church  members  have  removed  into  orthodox  parishes, 
they  have  cheerfully  given  them  a  dismission,  and  a  recommendation. 
So  that  no  one  will  pretend  that  unitarians  have  disregarded  the 
equality  of  the  churches  ;  but  aH  will  admit  that  they  have  observed 
the  fourth  fundamental  principle  of  the  Pilgrims.  These,  Sir,  are  the 
leading  and  important  principles  of  our  Pilgrim  fathers  ;  and  I  know  of 
no  way  in  which  you  could  have  violated  them  more  thoroughly,  or  in 
which  the  unitarians  could  have  observed  them  more  sacredly. 

2.  Doctrines  of  the  Pilgrims.  What  were  the  religious  doctrines  of 
the  Pilgrim  fathers  "?  The  Calvinistic  articles  of  belief.  This  I  do  not 
dispute.  But  does  the  orthodox  denomination  agree  with  the  fathers 
in  their  doctrinal  sentiments?  I  think  not.  And  I  will  give  the  rea- 
sons for  tliis  opinion.  Soon  after  the  settlement  of  our  country,  the 
great  assembly  of  divines  at  Westminster  drew  up  a  Confession  of 
Faith  and  two  Catechisms,  The  opinions  of  Calvin,  as  received  by 
his  followers  of  that  period,  were  embodied  in  these  formularies.  To 
these  statements  our  Pilgrim  fathers  of  that  day  assented,  and  pro- 
nounced these  articles  the  best  human  expression  of  their  orthodox 


LETTER  II.  -       137 

faith.  Now  can  you  aver,  that  your  denomination  in  New  England 
believes  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faih'?  I  will  quote  a  few  pas- 
sages, which  I  believe  most  of  you  concur  in  rejecting. 

And,//-5/,  take  the  doctrine  of  God  and  Christ.  Here  it  is.  "  In  the 
unity  of  the  Godhead  there  be  three  persons,  of  one  substance,  power, 
and  eternity  ;  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  Ga;i  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Father  is  of  none,  neither  begotten  nor  proceeding  ;  the  Son  is 
eternally  begotten  of  the  Father ;  the  Holy  Ghost  eternally  proceeding 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son."  Now  I  need  not  ask  if  you  can  assent 
to  all  the  statements  of  this  article.  I  know  you  cannot.  F'  r  in  the 
first  place,  you  do  not  believe  in  three  persons  in  the  Godhead.  This 
you  have  declared  in  your  first  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing.  You  hold 
merely  to  three  distinctions.  In  the  second  place,  you  do  not  believe  the 
Son  was  eternally  begotten  of  the  Father.  For  so  you  have  pro.  laimed 
in  your  Letters  to  Dr.  Miller.  In  fact,  this  book  was  written  for  the 
express  purpose  of  proving  that  this  doctrine  was  neither  Scriptural, 
rational,  nor  received  by  the  early  Christian  fathers.  And  you  must 
know  that  an  avowal  of  your  disbelief  of  these  two  points  would  have 
been  regarded  as  dangerous  and  alarming  heresy  by  our  Pilgrim 
fathers. 

And,  secondly,  take  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  all 
his  posterity.  Here  is  the  article.  "  Our  first  parents,  being  seduced 
by  the  subtlety  and  temptation  of  Satan,  sinned  in  eating  the  forbidden 
fruit.  This  their  sin,  God  was  pleased,  according  to  his  wise  and  holy 
counsel,  to  permit,  having  purposed  to  order  it  to  his  own  glory.  By 
this  sin  they  fell  from  their  original  righteousness  and  communion  with 
God,  and  so  became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the  faculties 
and  parts  of  soul  and  body.  They  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the 
guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted 
nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity  descending  from  them  by  ordi- 
nary generation.  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly 
indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined 
to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions ^  Now  I  need  not  ask 
if  you  believe  all  the  statements  in  this  quotation.  I  know  you  do  not. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  you  reject  the  doctrine  of  imputation.  Your 
friend  and  colleague,  Dr.  Woods,  in  his  Letters  to  Dr.  Ware,  ridicules 
the  idea  of  Adam's  sin  being  imputed  to  his  posterity.  Dr.  Appleton, 
late  President  of  Bowdoin  College,  has  a  very  powerful  and  conclusive 
argument  against  this  view,  in  his  volume  of  Sermons.  And  it  is  well 
known,  that  the  Professors  at  Princeton  are  very  bitter  against  the 
New  England  divines  for  giving  up  this  belief  of  our  Pilgrim  fathers. 
In  the  second  place,  you  know  that  the  New  Haven  Professors  have 
renounced  the  doctrine  of  our  original  corruption  of  soul  and  body 
being  the  cause  of  our  actual  transgressions.  So  that  the  whole  arti- 
cle is  virtually  abandoned  by  the  Connecticut  divines.  And  you  well 
18 


138  LETTER  II. 

know,  that  an  avowal  of  your  disbelief  of  these  two  points  would  have 
been  regarded  as  dangerous  and  alarming  lieresy  by  our  Pilgrim 
fathers. 

And,  thirdly,  take  the  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  infants.  This 
was  very  generally  received  by  the  early  Calvinists.  Here  you  have 
the  article  which  implies  this  horrid  belief  "Elkct  infants,  dying 
in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit, 
who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  bow  he  pleaselh."  Now  I  need 
not  ask  if  you  believe  that  any  infants  are  among  the  non-elect;  for 
Dr.  Beecher  has  publicly  declared  that  this  doctrine  of  infant  damna- 
tion is  given  up  by  the  denomination. 

And,  fourthly,  take  the  doctrine  of  freewill.  The  real  Calvinists 
hold  that  our  wills  are  not  free.  Here  is  the  article.  "  Man.  by  his 
fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  nbility  of  will  to  any  spiritual 
good  accompanying  salvation.  So  as  a  natural  man,  being  altogether 
averse  from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength, 
to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto"  I  need  not  ask  if 
all  your  leaders  can  assent  to  this  article.  I  know  you  cannot.  For 
in  the  first  place,  you  know  that  the  New  Haven  and  New  York  divines 
are  now  controverting  this  very  doctrine,  and  contending,  that  man  is 
able  to  prepare  himself  for  conversion  ;  that  he  is  active  and  not  passive 
in  regeneration.  And  in  the  second  place,  you  know,  that  Dr.  Beecher 
has  advocated  the  freedom  of  the  will  with  the  conclusive  arguments 
of  Arminianism.  One  extract  from  a  tract  lately  published  on  this 
subject  will  put  the  question  beyond  dispute.  Here  it  is.  "  By  a  free 
moral  agent,  1  mean  a  person  who  is  capable  of  discerning  between 
moral  good  and  evil,  ivho  is  voluntary  in  the  right  or  wrong  course  he 
pursues,  and  who  is  praise  or  blame  worthy,  according  as  he  obrys  or 
disobeys  the  law  of  God."  This  is  a  dire«'.t  contradiction  of  the  article 
from  our  fathers'  creed.  And  you  must  know  that  an  avowal  of  your 
disbelief  in  these  two  points  would  have  been  considered  dangerous 
and  alarming  heresy  by  the  Pilgrims. 

And,  fflhly,  take  the  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation.  Here  it  is. 
"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men 
and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore- 
ordained unto  everlasting  death.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  pre- 
destinated and  foreordained,  are  partindarly  and  unchangeably  designed; 
and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite,  thai  it  cannot  be  either  increased 
or  diminished.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life,  God, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eternal 
and  immutable  purpose,  and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of 
his  will,  hath  chosen,  in  Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere 
free  grace  and  love,  vnthout  any  foresight  of  faith,  or  good  works,  orper- 
severancein  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as  conditions, 
or  causes  moving  him  thereunto,  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious 


LETTER  II.  139 

grace.  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased,  according  to  the  un- 
searchable counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  extendeth,  or  with- 
holdeth  mercy,  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over 
his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath 
for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice."  These  were  very 
favorite  doctrines  with  our  Pilgrim  fathers ;  and  they  preached  them 
out  openly  and  boldly.  Now  I  suppose  yourself  and  most  of  the  ortho- 
dox clergy  really  believe  these  points ;  but  many  of  them  dare  not 
acknowledge  it  either  in  private  or  in  the  pulpit.  I  have  never  heard 
the  doctrine  of  reprobation  preached  but  once  in  New  England.  But  I 
think  the  great  mass  of  your  church  members  reject  this  view  of  both 
election  and  reprobation.  And  an  avowal  of  such  a  belief  would  have 
been  regarded  as  dangerous  and  alarming  heresy  by  our  Pilgrim 
fathers. 

I  could  extend  my  quotations  much  farther,  and  point  out  many  es- 
sential differences  between  the  faith  of  the  orthodox  of  our  day  and 
that  of  our  Pilgrim  fathers.  But  these  are  sufficient  to  convince  every 
one,  that  you  have  departed  from  many  doctrines  which  they  re- 
garded as  essential.  In  short,  they  would  not  have  acknowledged  your 
belief  as  sound  or  orthodox  ;  and  had  they  given  vent  to  their  persecut- 
ing spirit,  would  have  banished  you  from  the  commonwealth.  And  in 
view  of  these  truths,  why  have  you  asserted  your  agreement  in  opinion 
with  the  Pilgrims  ?  and  why  have  you  reproached  the  unitarians 
for  their  disagreement  ?  Are  you  authorized  to  say  just  how  far  a  per- 
son may  depart  from  their  creed,  and  still  be  their  son  in  faith.? 
If  not,  why  do  you  blame  others  for  doing  precisely  what  you  have 
done  yourselves.?  I  am  astonished  at  such  conduct  in  one  of  your 
standing. 

What  then  must  be  our  conclusion  ?  Have  not  the  unitarians  ob- 
served most  scrupulously  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Pilgrims  ? 
In  obedience  to  these  principles,  they  have  advanced  the  reformation, 
and  renounced  many  of  the  absurdities  of  their  doctrinal  creed.  Have 
not  the  orthodox  violated  their  fundamental  principles  most  palpably  ? 
And  in  f^isobedience  of  these  principles,  they  have  been  compelled  by 
the  progress  of  truth  to  renounce  several  of  the  essential  doctrines  of 
the  Pilgrim  fathers.  That  the  Pilgrims  were  frail,  prejudiced,  sinful 
mortals  ;  that  they  lived  in  a  comparatively  dark  and  ignorant  period  of 
the  world ;  that  they  sometimes  acted  inconsistently  with  their  own 
principles  as  well  as  the  precepts  of  the  gospel ;  that  they  were  some- 
times filled  with  errors,  superstitions,  and  idle  fancies  ;  that  they 
sometimes  manifested  a  bitter  spirit ;  that  they  were  sometimes  per- 
secutors ;  that  they  were  not  perfect  models  either  in  faith  or  practice 
for  the  imitation  of  Christians  of  the  present  day,  I  shall  not  under- 
take to  deny.  And  if  you  claim  for  your  denomination  to  be  their 
imitators  in  these  particulars,  I  certainly  shall  not  dispute  your  preten- 


140  LETTER  II. 

IV.  Harvard  University. 

The  leaders  of  your  party  have  recently  as  well  as  formerly  mani- 
fested great  hostility  towards  Harvard  University.  The  last  crusade 
against  its  peace,  prosperity,  and  reputation  was  commenced  by  Dr. 
Beecher.  A  wearisome  series  of  misrepresentations  then  followed  in 
the  Recorder,  said  to  have  been  compiled  principally  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Green  of  Boston.  The  Rev.  Parsons  Cook  soon  ushered  into  being 
some  statements  which  his  elder  brethren  had  not  sufficient  nerve  to 
publish.  The  last  season,  the  Rev.  Drs.  Beecher,  Fay,  and  Codman 
commissioned  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bennett  to  disseminate  the  various  slanders 
of  the  orthodox  leaders  through  the  obscure  villages  of  the  common- 
wealth. And  last,  though  not  least,  you  have  lent  all  your  aid  to  this 
nefarious  undertaking.  But  three  of  your  charges,  however,  appear  to 
me  to  be  worthy  of  the  least  attention ;  and  these  I  will  now  briefly 
notice. 

1.  You  complain  that  the  proceeds  of  funds  given  by  orthodox  indi- 
viduals are  appropriated  to  the  support  of  unitarian  instructers.  To 
convince  you  of  the  unreasonableness  and  absurdity  of  this  accusation, 
I  will  merely  ask  you  to  answer  the  five  following  questions.  And, 
jvrst^  suppose  the  early  benefactors  of  Harvard  University  had  done 
precisely  what  was  effected  by  the  founders  of  your  theological  semi* 
nary;  suppose  tliey  had  embodied  their  peculiar  religious  opinions  in 
a  human  creed  ;  suppose  they  had  solemnly  ordered  that  this  formu- 
lary should  never  be  subjected  to  the  least  alteration,  but  must  for  ever 
remain  the  standard  of  religious  truth  in  the  college  ;  suppose  they  had 
decreed  that  no  individual  should  be  employed  as  an  instructer  in  the 
institution  any  longer  than  he  could  heartily  assent  to  all  the  articles 
of  the  aforesaid  creed;  suppose  they  had  done  all  this  ;  and  of  what 
service  would  their  funds  now  be  to  your  denomination  ?  None  what- 
ever. For  you  well  know,  that  not  a  man  in  your  party  could  now 
honestly  assent  to  all  the  articles  which  would  have  been  considered 
essential  by  the  early  friends  of  the  University. 

And,  secondly,  suppose  the  orthodox  benefactors  of  the  University 
had  pointed  out  the  publications  which  should  be  for  ever  used  as  textp 
books  in  the  college  ;  suppose  they  had  specified  the  particular  senti- 
ments which  must  everlastingly  be  preached  in  the  chapel,  and  what 
would  now  be  the  consequence  ?  One  of  three  things.  Either  the 
funds  must  remain  entirely  useless ;  or  the  last  will  and  testament  of 
the  pious  donors  must  be  broken  and  disregarded  ;  or  the  obscure 
corners  of  Europe  would  h.ve  to  be  ransacked  for  a  professor,  who 
should  be  exposed  as  the  laughing-stock  of  the  whole  country.  Yes ; 
I  really  believe  a  smile  at  least  would  be  excited  on  the  gloomiest  and 
most  careworn  countenance  among  the  Calvinists  themselves,  if  such  a 
divine  as  the  credulous  Dr.  Mather  were  now  lecturing  in  the  University, 
explaining  the    best  methods  for  detecting  and  punishing   witches ; 


LETTER  II.  141 

attributing  thunder-storms  to  the  influence  and  agency  of  the  Devil ; 
taking  his  pupils  out  to  dig  for  thunder-bolts  at  the  foot  of  a  tree 
scathed  by  lightning ;  describing  comets  as  certain  indications  of  ap- 
proaching judgments ;  retailing  wonderful  stories  of  modern  miracles ; 
expounding  the  secret  will  of  the  Almighty  ;  and  enforcing  the  whole- 
some doctrine  of  eternal  reprobation. 

And,  thirdly^  why  not  extend  your  complaint  to  individuals,  towns, 
and  other  literary  institutions  ?  For  instance,  take  an  orthodox  gov- 
ernor. He  is  devoted  to  the  interests  of  your  denomination.  He 
leaves  a  large  property  to  be  equally  divided  between  two  sons.  One 
of  them  embraces  unitarianism,  and  contributes  generously  to  the  pro- 
motion of  those  objects  which  his  father  could  never  approve.  On  your 
principle,  his  property  must  be  taken  from  him,  and  given  to  the  son 
who  still  believes  more  of  the  articles  of  their  father's  religious  creed. 
Not  only  so.  In  the  town  north  of  this,  there  is  a  large  fund  for  the 
support  of  the  ministry.  It  was  probably  bestowed  by  orthodox  indi- 
viduals. It  is  now  appropriated  to  the  support  of  a  unitarian  minister. 
Perhaps  you  may  collect  some  half  a  dozen  orthodox  females  in  the 
whole  place.  And  on  your  principle,  these  ladies  have  a  right  to  the 
proceeds  of  this  fund,  because  their  religious  opinions  approach  nearer 
the  creed  of  the  original  donors.  But  this  is  not  all.  You  know  that 
the  University  of  Oxford  was  endowed  by  the  Catholics.  You  know 
their  funds  were  given  for  the  maintenance  and  dissemination  of  their 
religious  sentiments.  You  know  the  institution  is  now  in  the  hands 
exclusively  of  episcopalians.  You  know  the  Catholics  in  Great  Britain 
bear  as  large  a  proportion  to  the  episcopalians,  as  the  orthodox  descend- 
ants of  the  early  benefactors  of  Harvard  University  do  to  their  unitarian 
posterity.  On  your  principle  then  the  claims  of  the  Catholics  should  be 
immediately  granted.  In  all  these  cases  the  progress  of  society  should 
be  disregarded ;  and  if  so,  why  not  restore  our  commonwealth  to  the 
remaining  remnants  of  savage  tribes  ?  But  enough  has  been  said  to 
show  the  unreasonableness  of  the  complaint. 

And,  fourthly^  are  you  the  proper  person  to  bring  this  accusation 
against  the  free  citizens  of  the  commonwealth  ?  For  you  will  recollect 
that  all  the  blame  in  this  business  falls  upon  the  voters.  They  elect  a 
majority  of  the  board  of  overseers  ;  by  whom  the  appointment  of  every 
instructor  in  the  institution  must  be  confirmed.  But  I  would  have  you 
look  to  the  concerns  of  your  Education  Society.  How  many  of  the 
life-members  are  unitarians  ?  How  much  of  your  funds  was  given  by 
unitarian  benevolence  ?  Did  these  benefactors  bestow  their  property 
for  the  education  of  orthodox  young  men  ?  Did  they  wish  to  aid  in 
training  ministei-s  to  break  up  their  own  parishes,  deny  them  the  Chris- 
tian name,  and  sentence  them  to  hell  for  their  honest  opinions  ?  Has 
any  change  taken  place  in  public  opinion  which  requires  that  funds  thus 
bestowed  should  be  exclusively  appropriated  to  your  party  ?    When- 


142  LETTER  II. 

ever  your  directors  are  ready  to  assist  young  men  of  unitarian  opinions, 
I  shall  be  happy  to  recommend  a  few  candidates.  Perhaps  some  of  the 
number  will  be  those  who  have  been  dismissed  from  your  list  of  bene- 
ficiaries for  no  other  cause  but  ombracinj^  unitarianism.  And  after  you 
shall  have  done  this,  you  may  prefer  your  complaint  of  the  improper 
appropriation  of  funds  against  Harvard  University. 

But,  finally,  did  the  orthodox  benefactors  of  Harvard  University  bind 
down  their  legacies  to  the  maintenance  of  their  religious  opinions? 
No ;  they  came  to  this  country  to  advance  tlie  reformation  ;  not  to 
retard  its  progress.  They  were  very  confident  that  more  light  was 
yet  to  break  from  God's  holy  word  ;  not  that  all  its  essential  doctrines 
could  then  be  embodied  in  a  human  standard.  They  greatly  lamented 
that  their  friends  in  the  old  world  had  come  to  a  period  in  religion ; 
not  that  they  were  renouncing  the  absurd  opinions  of  their  unenlight- 
ened ancestors.  They  firmly  believed  that  more  truth  had  been 
revealed  to  them  than  to  their  Catholic  fathers  ;  and  they  fondly  trusted 
that  their  children  would  be  blessed  M'ith  still  greater  illumination. 
With  such  views  and  feelings,  they  could  not  aid  in  suppressing  free 
inquiry.  They  could  not  consistently  confine  the  proceeds  of  their  do- 
nations to  those,  and  those  only,  who  should  ever  after  believe  precisely 
their  religious  sentiments.  They  had  sacrificed  much  in  order  to  study 
and  understand  the  Scriptures  for  themselves ;  and  they  could  not 
conscientiously  deprive  their  descendants  of  the  exercise  of  a  right 
which  had  cost  them  so  dearly.  They  wished  to  promote  good  learn- 
ing and  pure  religion ;  and  they  put  sufficient  confidence  in  their 
posterity  to  leave  them  at  liberty  to  pursue  the  most  expedient  meas- 
ures for  the  accomplishment  of  these  purposes.  They  theiefore  put 
no  such  restrictions  on  the  use  of  their  benefactions,  as  everlasting 
creeds  and  unconstitutional  trust-deeds.  I  think  these  considerations 
are  enough  to  show  the  unreasonableness  and  absurdity  of  your  first 
accusation. 

2.  You  complain  that  your  rights  in  Harvard  University  are  wrested 
from  you,  and  that  tJie  institution  has  assumed  a  sectarian  character. 
To  convince  you  of  the  unreasonableness  and  absurdity  of  this  charge, 
I  will  ask  a  few  explanatory  questions :  Is  any  religious  test  required 
of  the  students  upon  their  entrance  to  the  college  ?  No  ;  they  are 
required  simply  to  produce  a  certificate  of  good  moral  character.  Are 
not  all  the  students  admitted  to  the  same  instructions  ?  Yes ;  all  are 
treated  with  equal  attention.  Are  the  proceeds  of  the  funds  given  for 
the  assistance  of  indigent  students  confined  to  unitarians  ?  No  ;  they 
are  bestowed  without  the  least  regard  to  the  religious  opinions  of  the 
applicants.  Are  the  honors  of  college  bestowed  witli  a  partial  hand  ?  No  ; 
parts  are  assigned  in  strict  accordance  with  the  standing  of  the  students. 
Are  all  students  obliged  to  attend  upon  unitarian  preaching  ?  No ;  if  of 
age,  they  may  choose  their  own  meeting ;  if  not,  they  may  go  wherever 


LETTER  II.       .  143 

their  parents  request.  And  they  can  be  accommodated  with  seats  in 
the  churches,  either  of  the  orthodox,  the  episcopalians,  the  baptists,  the 
universalists,  the  methodists,  the  Swedenborgians,  or  the  Catholics. 
Are  any  measures  adopted  to  prepossess  the  young  men  in  favor  of 
unitarian  opinions,  such  as  giving  them  tracts,  praying  for  the  conver- 
sion of  the  orthodox,  pointing  them  out  as  heretics,  holding  conference 
and  prayer  and  inquiry  meetings  ?  No;  nothing  of  the  kind.  Efforts 
are  indeed  made  to  induce  them  to  love  God  with  all  their  heart,  and 
their  neighbour  as  themselves  ;  and  beyond  this,  they  are  left  to  draw 
their  own  views  from  the  sacred  Scriptures.  In  what  consists  the 
sectarian  character  of  the  Institution  ?  For  the  life  of  me,  I  cannot  think 
of  one  particular.  And  what  rights  are  wrested  from  you  any  more 
than  from  me  'i    I  certainly  know  of  none  whatever. 

And  are  you  the  proper  person  to  prefer  such  complaints  against 
Harvard  University.  Look  at  some  of  the  other  institutions  in  the 
land.  I  will  say  nothing  of  your  Theological  Seminary,  which  is  so 
notoriously  sectarian,  and  where  every  student  who  does  not  find  the 
articles  of  your  human  creed  in  the  Bible  must  receive  such  illiberal 
treatment.  I  will  say  nothing  of  the  Academy  connected  with  your 
Institution,  where  so  much  is  done  to  prejudice  youth  in  favor  of  ortho- 
doxy, where  so  many  young  men  have  been  driven  out  of  all  belief  in 
Christianity,  and  where  unitarians  are  afraid  to  send  their  children, 
lest  they  should  be  made  thorough  infidels.  I  will  say  nothing  of 
Dartmouth,  where  Edwards  on  the  Will  was  lately  introduced  as  a 
text-book.  I  will  come  to  Yale  and  Amherst  Colleges  established  for 
the  people,  and  where  as  many  unitarian  parents  send  their  sons,  as 
there  are  orthodox  who  send  to  Cambridge.  Can  a  unitarian  instruc- 
ter  find  employment  in  either  institution  ?  No  ;  while  at  Cambridge 
some  two  or  three  are  engaged  in  the  government  and  instruction  of 
the  students.  And  what  religious  sentiments  must  the  unitarian  stu- 
dent hear  advanced  week  after  week  .^  The  most  rigid  orthodoxy. 
Look  at  Dr.  Dwight's  five  volumes  of  Lectures  delivered  in  the  chapel 
at  New  Haven.  Do  not  these  contain  all  your  essential  doctrines; 
and  are  not  all  your  arguments  against  unitarianism  arranged  in  battle 
array  ?  And  must  he  not  also  hear  those  who  embrace  unitarian 
Christianity  held  up  in  orthodox  prayers  and  sermons  as  totally  de- 
praved, unconverted,  infidels,  and  sentenced  to  eternal  condemnation 
for  their  honest  opinions  ?  Must  he  not  be  singled  out  by  the  hope- 
fully pious  young  men  as  an  object  of  peculiar  attention  on  account  of 
the  good  influence  he  might  exert  in  his  father's  family,  should  he 
be  once  regenerated  ;  and  is  he  not  so  beset  with  tracts,  and  books, 
and  exhortations,  and  prayers,  and  conferences,  as  to  disgust  him  with 
the  very  name  of  religion  "i  In  all  this  there  is  nothing  sectarian  in 
your  opinion  ;  no  rights  are  wrested  from  any  one ;  all  are  permitted 
to  enjoy  perfect  liberty  to  think  and  act  as  they  please,  so  long  as  they 
will  think  like  the  orthodox. 


144  LETTER  II. 

But  what  would  you  have  changed  at  Cambridge  in  order  to  restore 
your  wrested  rights?  You  would  have  a  majority  of  the  instruclers 
taken  from  the  orthodox  denomination,  and  an  orthodox  professor  of 
divinity  appointed.  And  what  would  he  the  consequence  of  such  an 
alteration  ?  The  evangelical  instructers  would  have  frequent  prayer- 
meetings,  to  pray  for  the  conversion  of  the  liberal  members  of  the  gov- 
ernment. All  students  of  hopeful  piety  would  be  invited  to  unite  in 
such  benevolent  devotions,  in  order  to  destroy  their  confidence  in  thoir 
unitarian  teachers.  The  great  body  of  the  students,  nine-tenths  of  tiie 
whole,  would  be  exhorted  to  abjure  that  system  of  religion  which 
**  never  brought  a  soul  to  Jesus  Christ  and  to  heaven,  and  which  never 
will."  They  would  be  entreated  to  subscribe  the  orthodox  creed,  and 
in  that  very  act,  to  sign  the  warrant  of  eternal  damnation  of  their 
parents.  Then  they  would  be  qualified  to  spend  a  useful  vacation  at 
home,  in  teaching  their  brothers  and  sisters  to  despise  the  religion  of 
their  fathers  and  mothers,  and  to  disregard  their  counsel  and  authority. 
A  few  hundreds  of  tracts  would  be  generously  presented  to  them  to 
scatter  among  their  heathen  neighbours;  and  aid  in  getting  up  a  reli- 
gious excitement  in  the  parish  of  a  unitarian  minister.  I  suppose  if 
these  things  could  be  effected,  you  would  feel  that  your  rights  were 
restored,  and  that  the  sectarian  character  of  the  college  was  destroy- 
ed. But  I  think  sufficient  has  been  said  to  show  the  unreasonable- 
ness and  absurdity  of  your  second  accusation. 

3.  You,  or  rather  your  agent,  has  declared  that  it  would  be  tempting 
God  for  orthodox  parents  to  send  their  sons  to  Harvard  University. 
Why  so  ?  Is  the  Institution  in  so  bad  a  state  that  their  morals  would 
be  endangered  ?  O  no.  Students  who  have  come  to  Cambridge  from 
Amherst  and  Yale  uniforrrjly  declare,  that  the  order,  the  morals,  the 
sobriety  at  religious  exercises,  the  attention  to  study  are  better  at  Cam- 
bridge than  at  either  of  the  other  colleges.  A  member  of  an  orthodox 
church  who  left  Cambridge  and  joined  Amherst,  has  lately  affirmed 
that  there  is  more  roguery,  more  dissipation,  less  order,  at  Andierst 
*than  at  Cambridge,  and  that  he  wished  himself  well  back  to  the 
heretical  institution. 

liut  finally,  what  is  the  real  cause  of  all  the  orthodox  complaints 
against  Harvard  University  ?  Simply  this.  It  is  a  truly  liberal  insti- 
tution. Orthodox  young  men  have  entered  there  with  the  intention  of 
being  preachers  in  that  denomination.  They  were  not  troubled  on 
account  of  their  religious  opinions,  but  taught  to  reason  correctly. 
The  same  principles  of  investigation  were  carried  into  religious  sub- 
jects, and  naturally  led  them  to  renounce  the  inconsistencies  and 
absunlitics  of  (  alvinism.  On  this  account,  the  orthodox  ministers 
think  it  would  be  tempting  God  for  their  church  members  to  send 
their  sons  to  Cambridge,  because  they  might  possibly  be  led  to  era- 
brace  correct  principles  of  reasoning.  I  believe  this  to  be  the  sole 
cause  of  all  your  complaints. 


LETTER  II.  145 

V.  Catholics. 

I  perceive,  Sir,  that  you  have  brought  in  the  Catholics  for  a  share  of 
your  censure.  I  suppose  this  ought  to  have  been  expected,  since  it  is 
in  such  perfect  keeping  with  the  spirit  and  proceedings  of  your  leaders. 
More  than  two  years  ago,  the  alarm  that  the  Catholics  were  increasing 
in  our  free  country  was  loudly  sounded.  A  violent  attack  was  then 
commenced  upon  their  opinions  and  measures.  Base  suspicions  re- 
specting their  motives,  and  cruel  insinuations  respecting  their  designs, 
were  whispered  through  the  orthodox  ranks.  Parents  were  urged, 
a  little  beyond  the  bounds  of  strict  modesty,  to  take  their  children  from 
Catholic  seminaries.  Inflammatory  appeals  were  fulminated  from  many 
an  evangelical  pulpit.  Public  meetings  of  the  clergy  were  harangued 
on  this  most  alarming  topic.  And  all  this  noise,  and  warning,  and  de- 
nunciation for  what  cause  ?  Simply  because  the  scattered  members  of 
the  mother  church,  in  this  land  of  boasted  freedom,  have  thought  proper 
to  form  themselves  into  regular  societies ;  to  erect  churches  for  their 
own  accommodation ;  and  to  recommend  their  ancient  faith  and  forms 
of  worship  to  Protestant  Christians,  by  their  conversation,  preaching, 
and  publications.  Simply  because  the  higher  authorities  in  Europe 
have  kindly  sent  pecuniary  aid  to  their  poorer  brethren  in  America, 
and  furnished  them  with  learned  instructers  and  preachers  of  their  own 
denomination.  In  relation  to  the  orthodox  denunciations  of  Catholics, 
permit  me  to  ask  you /owr  questions. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  in  condemning  the  measures  of  the  Catholic 
church,  do  you  not  pronounce  a  more  severe  sentence  of  condemnation  on 
the  leaders  of  your  oivn  denomination  ?  What  then  are  your  accusa- 
tions ?  Do  you  aver,  that  the  Catholic  church  conceals  the  Bible  from 
the  common  people  ?  This  charge  may  be  true  in  some  measure  in 
foreign  countries.  But  admit  its  truth  to  the  fullest  extent ;  and  is  not 
the  conduct  of  the  orthodox  leaders  in  this  very  particular  much  more 
criminal  ?  You  indeed  make  exertions  to  place  the  Bible  in  the  hands 
of  every  person,  and  exhort  all  moral  agents  to  search  its  contents  with 
perseverance  and  prayer.  But  let  an  individual  pursue  his  inquiries 
into  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  ever  so  faithfully  ;  let  him  exhibit  the 
spirit  and  principles  of  the  gospel  in  his  temper  and  behaviour  ever  so 
perfectly  ;  still  you  deny  him  the  Christian  name  ;  you  exclude  him  from 
the  Christian  ordinances  ;  you  deprive  him  of  his  means  of  subsistence, 
unless  he  will  assent  to  your  human  creed  as  the  standard  of  Christian 
truth.  Nay,  worse  than  this.  Should  he  refuse  to  express  his  religious 
opinions  in  any  other  words  than  those  of  the  sacred  writers,  you  heap  upon 
him  every  opprobrious  epithet ;  you  withhold  from  him  every  Christian 
right  and  privilege  ;  you  even  sentence  him  to  endless  torments  in  hell. 
Compare  this  conduct  with  the  Catholic  measure  of  concealing  the  Bible. 
Some  of  their  ministers  in  former  ages  studied  the  Scriptures  ;  and  now 
their  conclusions  must  be  received  by  the  people  as  the  inspired  truth,  or 
19 


146  LETTER  II. 

they  must  abide  the  consequences  of  their  refusal.  So  of  the  orthodox. 
Some  of  your  priests, of  former  ages  searched  the  sacred  records,  and 
now  their  conclusions,  which  have  been  embodied  in  human  formularies, 
must  be  acknowledged  as  the  standard  of  gospel  truth  by  the  people,  or 
they  must  suffer  the  bitter  consequence  of  their  independence.  Is  not 
this  cheating  your  hearers  with  the  name  of  religious  liberty,  while  you 
hold  them  in  the  most  abject  slavery  ?  Would  it  not  be  more  desirable 
for  them  to  be  deprived  of  tiie  Scriptures  themselves,  than  to  be  thus 
tormented  for  an  honest  adherence  to  their  apparent  meaning  ?  Is  not 
this  conduct  of  the  orthodox  leaders  in  tliis  particular  much  more 
criminal  than  that  of  the  Catholic  church  ?  —  more  criminal,  because 
perpetrated  in  direct  violation  of  your  professed  Protestant  and  congre- 
gational principles,  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  right  of 
private  judgment  ? 

2.  In  the  second  place,  do  you  aver,  that  the  Catholic  church  is  ex- 
clusive ? —  that  she  claims  to  be  the  only  true  church?  —  that  she 
regards  all  who  depart  from  her  faith  as  heretics  ?  —  and  that  she 
consigns  all  without  her  pale  to  final  damnation?  Well,  admit  the 
truth  of  this  charge  in  its  full  extent ;  and  is  not  the  conduct  of  the 
orthodox  leaders  in  this  very  particular  much  more  criminal  ?  Have 
you  not  declared,  that  learned  and  pious  ministers  of  your  own  denomi- 
nation, of  the  congregational  denomination,  were  not  Christian  minis- 
ters ?  Have  you  not  declared,  that  regularly  organized  and  exemplary 
churches,  of  your  own  denomination,  were  not  Christian  churches  ? 
Have  you  not  declared,  that  the  ordinances  of  sincere  and  obedient 
disciples,  of  your  own  denomination,  were  not  Christian  institutions  ? 
Have  you  not  repeatedly  excluded  exemplary  and  devoted  believers,  of 
your  own  denomination,  from  your  ecclesiastical  councils,  your  ministe- 
rial associations,  your  congregational  churches,  and  your  Christian 
fellowship,  as  heretics  ?  Have  you  not  denied  to  them  the  Christian 
name,  and  privileges,  and  consolations  ?  Have  you  not  persecuted  them 
with  suspicions,  insinuations,  privations,  and  denunciations  ?  Have  you 
not  even  shut  against  them  the  gates  of  heaven,  and  deliberately  con- 
signed thorn  to  unutterable  and  endless  torments  ?  And  all  tliis  for 
what  cause  ?  Because  their  souls  were  polluted,  their  morals  aban- 
doned, or  their  characters  wicked  ?  No ;  nothing  of  the  kind  is 
alleged  against  them.  No ;  but  simply  because  they  adhered  scru- 
pulously to  the  pillars  of  the  reformation.  Simply  because  they  chose 
to  obey  Christ  rather  than  any  eartidy  master.  Simply  because  tliey 
received  the  teachings  of  the  gospel  as  their  only  guide  of  faith  and 
practice.  Simply  because  they  would  not  express  their  religious  opin- 
ions in  the  misty  phrases  of  man's  invention.  Simply  because  they 
would  acknowledge  no  standard  of  Christian  faith  but  tlie  Bible.  Are 
you  not  then  as  exclusive  as  the  Catholics,  so  far  as  you  have  power  to 
execute  your  decrees  ?     And  is  not  this  conduct  of  your  leaders  in  this 


LETTER  II.  147 

particular  much  more  criminal  than  that  of  the  Catholics  ?  —  more  crimi- 
nal, because  perpetrated  in  direct  violation  of  your  Protestant  and  con- 
gregational principles,  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  right  of 
private  judgment  ? 

3.  In  the  third  place,  do  you  aver,  that  the  Catholic  church  adopts 
unchristian  plans  for  maintaining  and  propagating  her  religious  faith  ? 
—  that  her  members  organize  themselves  into  societies  too  feeble  for 
the  support  of  a  pastor  ?  —  apply  to  foreign  aid  for  the  means  to  erect 
houses  of  worship?  —  take  unwearied  pains  to  proselyte  from  other 
denominations  ?  —  and  that  her  priests  acquire  absolute  control  of  the 
female  population  ?  Will  you  affirm  that  her  bishops  forbid  the  people 
to  read  a  Protestant  publication?  —  or  attend  a  Protestant  meeting?  — 
or  send  their  children  to  a  Protestant  Sunday  school  ?  Well,  admit  the 
truth  of  these  charges  to  the  full  extent ;  and  is  not  the  conduct  of  the 
orthodox  leaders  much  more  criminal  in  this  particular  ?  Look  at  the 
measures  of  your  party  the  last  dozen  years,  for  promoting  the  Calvin- 
istic  faith  ?  Have  you  not  organized  orthodox  churches,  when  you  could 
obtain  only  one,  or  two,  or  four  male  members  in  the  whole  town  ? 
Have  you  not  erected  meetinghouses  for  their  accommodation,  with 
money  which  had  been  extorted  by  over  persuasion  from  the  poor,  the 
embarrassed,  the  hard-laboring,  the  orphan  and  widoAv  ?  Have  you  not 
ordained  ministers  over  these  feeble  societies,  when  you  knew  that 
three  quarters,  or  two  thirds,  or  one  half  of  their  salaries  must  be  ob- 
tained by  a  system*  of  most  pertinacious  begging  ?  Have  you  not 
adopted  almost  every  species  of  proselytism  ?  such  as  entering  the 
united  and  peaceable  societies  of  your  brethren,  and  urging  them  to 
leave  their  present  pastor  and  congregation  ?  Have  you  not  exhorted 
your  people  to  avoid  a  unitarian  publication  as  they  would  a  cup  of  poi- 
son ?  and  never  to  converse  with  unitarians  on  their  religious  opinions  ? 
Has  not  a  writer  in  a  late  "  Recorder  "  endeavoured  to  frighten  ortho- 
dox church  members  from  attending  upon  unitarian  preaching,  when 
visiting  their  friends  or  attending  the  General  Court  in  Boston  ? 
Have  you  not  forbidden  their  attending  upon  unitarian  preaching  and 
ordinances ;  and  when  you  could  not  deter  them  by  threats,  have  you 
not  excommunicated  them  from  your  fellowship  for  the  offence  ?  Have 
you  not  forbidden  your  children  to  attend  a  unitarian  Sunday  school, 
and  when  the  father  has  insisted  on  the  exercise  of  this  right,  has  not 
the  orthodox  mother  hidden  their  books  ?  Nay,  worse.  Has  not  an 
orthodox  church  lately  excommunicated  some  of  its  members  for 
exercising  the  liberty  of  attending  the  communions  of  another  or- 
thodox church  ?  Has  not  an  orthodox  council,  with  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Storrs  at  its  head,  sanctioned  its  proceedings?  Has  not  an  appeal 
been  made  by  the  aggrieved  to  such  bold  advocates  of  religious  freedom 
as  yourself  and  your  respected  coUeague  ?  And  especially,  have  not 
your  preachers  taken  unwearied  pains  to  secure  the  influence  of  the 


14S  LETTER  IT. 

women,  by  visiting  them  in  the  absence  of  their  husbands,  appealing^  to 
their  fears,  and  exhorting  them  to  conceal  your  proposals  from  their 
husbands?  And  all  tliis  for  what  cause?  Not  because  you  really 
feared,  that  one  soul  more  would  go  to  hell  if  you  neglected  these  ex- 
ertions ;  for  tliis  would  be  mere  idle  pretence  in  the  believers  in  elec- 
tion. But  simply  because  the  unitarians  will  not  subscribe  human 
creeds,  and  choose  to  make  the  Scriptures  the  sufficient  and  only  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  Is  not  the  conduct  of  tlie  ortliodox  leaders  in  this 
particular  much  more  criminal  than  that  of  the  Catholics  ?  —  more 
criminal,  because  perpetrated  in  direct  violation  to  your  professed  Prot- 
estant and  congregational  principles  of  the  sufficiency  of  tlie  Scriptures 
and  the  right  of  private  judgment  ? 

4.  In  the  fourth  place,  do  you  aver,  that  the  Catholic  faith  is  unsatis- 
factory and  absurd  ?  —  that  the  members  of  her  church  do  not  give  the 
best  evidence  of  piety  ?  —  and  that  she  suffers  the  repose  of  the  sick 
and  dying  to  be  disturbed  by  the  begging  of  her  priests  ?  Admit  these 
charges  to  the  full  extent ;  and  in  these  particulars  are  not  the  faith 
and  conduct  of  the  orthodox  leaders  more  defective  and  criminal?  If 
you  are  safer  than  the  unitarians  because  you  believe  more,  are  not 
the  Catholics  safer  than  the  orthodox  on  the  same  principle  ?  Have 
they  not  ten  times  the  evidence  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
atantiation,  that  you  have  in  support  of  the  trinity  ?  And  can  the  natural 
tendency  of  any  of  their  articles  of  belief  be  more  immoral,  than  that  of 
total  depravity,  moral  inability,  final  perseverance,  election  and  reproba- 
tion ?  And  if  you  are  more  pious  than  unitarians,  because  you  are  more 
charitable  and  prayerful,  are  not  the  Catholics  more  pious  than  the  ortho- 
dox on  the  same  ground  ?  Do  they  not  give  ten  times  the  amount  to  benev- 
olent objects  according  to  their  circumstances  ?  Have  they  not  done  a 
hundred  times  as  much  in  the  cause  of  missions  ?  And  do  they  not 
daily  offer  up  manifold  more  prayers  ?  And  as  to  disturbing  the  sick 
and  dying,  have  not  individuals  in  your  party  done  the  very  same  thing 
in  this  Commonwealth  ?  Have  there  not  been  repeated  instances,  in 
which  legacies  have  been  begged  of  the  departing  for  orthodox  pur- 
poses ?  Have  there  not  been  some  cases  in  which  your  ministers  were 
concerned,  much  to  the  detriment  of  their  own  character,  as  well  as  to 
the  dissatisfaction  of  surviving  friends  ?  Has  there  not  been  so  much 
iniquity  practised  in  this  way,  as  to  lead  our  lawgivers  to  take  up  the 
subject  in  the  halls  of  legislation  ?  But  this  is  not  the  worst  part  of  the 
business.  Have  not  orthodox  ministers  threatened  the  sick  and  dying 
with  hell  torments,  unless  they  performed  impossibilities  ?  I  will  relate 
only  two  instances  of  such  conduct  out  of  the  many  which  have  come 
to  my  knowledge.  An  orthodox  minister  was  invited  to  visit  a  young 
lady,  }i|)parently  near  her  end.  He  asked  her,  if  she  was  willing  to  be 
damned?  She  answered  in  the  negative.  Ho  then  assured  her,  that 
she  could  entertain  no  good  hope  of  salvation.    The  ef!ect  produced 


LETTER  II.  149 

on  her  system  was  such,  that  her  physician  soon  let  him  understand  that 
his  absence  would  be  much  more  agreeable  than  his  presence.  The 
other  case  is  more  aggravated.  An  orthodox  minister  called  upon  a 
very  sick  widow,  who  had  been  several  years  an  exemplary  member  of 
a  unitarian  church.  His  presence  was  neither  solicited  nor  desired  by 
the  suffering  patient.  He  assured  her,  that  she  could  not  expect  to  be 
saved,  unless  she  believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  She  afterward 
observed,  that  such  unchristian  treatment  would  have  deprived  her  of 
her  senses,  had  she  not  searched  the  Scriptures  for  herself,  and  known 
in  whom  she  confided.  And  ia  not  this  requiring  an  impossibility? 
Can  you  believe  a  proposition,  not  merely  without  evidence,  but  contrary 
to  the  plain  testimony  of  inspired  writers?  The  Catholic  requires 
nothing  but  money  ;  and  this  all  can  give  who  possess  it.  The  ortho- 
dox require  belief  without  evidence ;  and  this  no  one  can  give.  In 
making  such  a  requisition  then,  is  not  the  conduct  of  the  orthodox 
leaders  much  more  criminal  than  that  of  the  Catholic  ?  —  more  crimi- 
nal, because  perpetrated  in  direct  violation  of  your  professed  Protestant 
and  congregational  principles,  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  and 
the  right  of  private  judgment  ? 

I  think.  Sir,  that  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  are  guilty  of  the  very 
same  offences  which  they  condemn  in  the  Catholics.  I  am  not  alone 
in  this  opinion.  Ministers  of  your  own  party  have  advanced  the  same 
sentiment.  I  will  give  you  one  long  extract  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chalm- 
ers, the  greatest  orthodox  divine  of  the  present  period,  as  you  all 
acknowledge.  Had  his  statements  come  from  the  pen  of  a  unitarian, 
you  would  have  considered  them  slanderous.  But  as  they  confirm  all 
my  insinuations,  I  hope  you  will  be  convinced  by  such  evangelical  tes- 
timony.    Here  is  the  quotation. 

"  Let  us,  therefore,  take  a  nearer  look  of  popery,  and  try  to  find  out 
how  much  of  popery  there  is  in  the  religion  of  Protestants.  Firsty  then, 
it  is  said  of  papists,  that  they  ascribe  an  infallibility  to  the  pope,  so 
that,  if  he  were  to  say  one  thing  and  the  Bible  another,  his  authority 
would  carry  it  over  the  authority  of  God.  And,  think  you,  my  brethren, 
that  there  is  no  such  popery  among  you  ?  Is  there  no  taking  of  your 
religion  upon  trust  from  another,  when  you  should  draw  it  fresh  and 
unsullied  from  the  fountain-head  of  inspiration  ?  You  all  have,  or  ought 
to  have.  Bibles ;  and  how  often  is  it  repeated  there.  Hearken  diligently 
unto  me  ?  Now,  do  you  obey  this  requirement,  by  making  the  reading 
of  your  Bibles  a  distinct  and  earnest  exercise  ?  Do  you  ever  dare  to 
bring  your  favorite  minister  to  the  tribunal  of  the  word,  or  would  you 
tremble  at  the  presumption  of  such  an  attempt,  so  that  the  hearing  of 
the  word  cames  a  greater  authority  over  your  mind  than  the  reading 
of  the  word  ?  Now,  this  want  of  daring,  this  trembling  at  the  very  idea 
of  dissent  from  your  minister,  this  indolent  acquiescence  in  his  doc- 
trine, is  just  calling  another  man  master ;  it  is  putting  the  authority  of 


150  LETTER  II. 

man  over  the  authority  of  God ;  it  is  throwing  yourself  into  a  prostrate 
attitude  at  the  foot-stool  of  human  infallibility ;  it  is  not  just  kissing  tlie 
toe  of  reverence,  but  it  is  tlie  profounder  degradation  of  the  mind,  and 
of  all  its  faculties  ;  and  without  the  name  of  popery,  that  name  which 
lights  up  so  ready  an  antipathy  in  your  bosoms,  your  souls  may  be 
infected  with  the  substantial  poison,  and  your  consciences  be  weighed 
down  by  the  oppressive  shackles  of  popery.  And  aJl  this  in  the  noon- 
day effulgence  of  a  Protestant  country,  where  the  Bible  in  your  mother 
tongue,  circulates  among  all  your  families,  where  it  may  be  met  with 
on  every  shelf,  and  is  ever  soliciting  you  to  look  to  the  wisdom  that  is 
inscribed  upon  its  pages.  O !  how  tenderly  should  we  deal  with  the 
prejudices  of  a  rude  and  uneducated  people,  who  have  no  Bibles,  and 
no  art  of  reading  among  them  to  unlock  its  treasures,  when  we  think 
that,  even  in  this  our  land,  the  voice  of  human  authority  carries  so-mighty 
an  influence  along  with  it,  and  veneration  for  the  word  of  God  is  dark- 
ened and  polluted  by  a  blind  veneration  for  its  interpreters. 

"  And,  secondly,  we  tremble  to  read  of  the  fulminations  that  have 
issued  in  other  days  from  a  conclave  of  cardinals.  Have  we  no  con- 
claves, and  no  fulminations,  and  no  orders  of  inquisition,  in  our  own 
country  ?  Is  there  no  professing  brotherhood,  or  no  professing  sister- 
hood, to  deal  their  censorious  invectives  around  them,  upon  the  mem- 
bers of  an  excommunicated  world  ?  There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  religious 
public.  There  is  a  little  flock  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  world  lying  in 
wickedness  on  the  other.  But  have  a  care,  ye  who  think  yourselves 
of  the  favored  ievr,  how  you  never  transgress  the  mildness,  and  charity, 
and  unostentatious  virtues  of  the  gospel ;  lest  you  hold  out  a  distorted 
picture  of  Christianity  in  your  neighbourhood,  and  impose  that  as 
religion  on  the  fancy  of  the  credulous,  Avhich  stands  at  as  wide  a  dis- 
tance from  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament,  as  do  the  services  of  an 
exploded  superstition,  or  the  mummeries  of  an  antiquated  ritual. 

"  But,  thirdly,  it  is  said  that  papists  worship  saints,  and  fall  down  to 
graven  images.  This  is  very,  very  bad.  Thou  shalt  Avorship  the  Lord 
thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve.  But  let  us  take  ourselves  to 
task  upon  this  charge  also.  Have  we  no  consecrated  names  in  the 
annals  of  reformation?  —  no  worthies  who  hold  too  commanding  a  place 
in  the  remembrance  and  afi*ection  of  Protestants  ?  Are  there  no  de- 
parted theologians,  whose  works  hold  too  domineering  an  ascendency 
over  the  faith  and  practice  of  Christians  ?  Are  there  no  laborious 
compilations  of  other  days,  which,  instead  of  interpreting  tlie  Bible, 
have  given  its  truths  a  shape,  and  a  form,  and  an  arrangement,  that 
confer  upon  them  another  impression,  and  impart  to  them  another 
influence,  from  the  pure  and  original  record  ?  We  may  not  bend  the 
knee  in  any  sensible  chamber  of  imagery,  at  the  remembrance  of  favorite 
saints.  But  do  we  not  bend  the  understanding  before  the  volumes  of 
favorite  authors,  and  do  an  homage  to  those  representations  of  minds  of 


LETT'er  II.  161 

the  men  of  other  days,  which  should  be  exclusively  given  to  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  as  put  down  in  the  book  of  the 
Spirit's  revelation  ?  It  is  right  that  each  of  us  should  give  the  contri- 
bution of  his  own  talents,  and  his  own  learning,  to  this  most  interesting 
cause  ;  but  let  the  great  drift  of  our  argument  be  to  prop  the  authority 
of  the  Bible,  and  to  turn  the  eye  of  earnestness  upon  its  pages ;  for  if 
any  work  instead  of  exalting  the  Bible,  shall  be  made,  by  the  misjudging 
reverence  of  others,  to  stand  in  its  place,  then  we  introduce  a  false 
worship  into  the  heart  of  a  reformed  country,  and  lay  prostrate  the 
consciences  of  men,  under  the  yoke  of  a  spurious  authority." 

VI.     Ujviversalists. 

I  perceive.  Sir,  that  you  have  renewed  your  attack  upon  the  rights 
of  universalists.  In  your  election  sermon,  you  contended  that  those, 
who  do  not  believe  in  punishment  after  death,  should  not  be  permitted 
to  take  an  oath  of  office  or  trust.  You  have  again  repeated  the  same 
opinion.  Now  let  us  see  to  what  this  threatened  disability  amounts. 
Suppose  your  only  son  should  be  stabbed  to  the  heart  by  an  abandoned 
assassin.  Suppose  that  ten  of  the  most  respectable  universalists  in  the 
land  should  happen  to  be  eye-witnesses  of  the  horrid  transaction.  Sup- 
pose the  murderer  should  be  seized  and  brought  to  trial  before  an 
orthodox  jury.  Suppose  no  evidence  of  his  guilt  could  be  produced  but 
the  testimony  of  these  gentlemen.  According  to  your  doctrine,  these 
witnesses  are  unworthy  to  be  sworn,  and  therefore  the  prisoner  must 
go  unpunished.  Nor  is  this  all.  All  universalists  of  this  class  must  be 
excluded  from  every  office  of  honor,  trust,  or  emolument,  either  civil, 
political,  military,  commercial,  diplomatic,  or  religious,  where  an  oath 
of  fidelity  or  allegiance  is  required.  And  all  this  for  what  cause? 
Simply  because  they  are  unable  to  find  sufficient  evidence  to  believe 
the  wicked  will  be  punished  in  the  next  existence  ;  and  because  they 
either  cannot  believe  without  evidence,  or  will  not  act  the  part  of 
hypocrites.  In  relation  to  your  denunciation  of  universalists,  permit 
me  to  ask  you  four  questions. 

In  the  first  place,  —  In  condemning  the  universcUist  as  unworthy  to 
take  an  oath,  do  you  not  pronounce  sentence  of  condemnation  on  yourself^ 
You  would  deprive  him  of  this  right,  because  he  does  not  believe  that 
he  shall  be  punished  for  his  present  sins  in  another  world.  And  is  not 
this  your  own  belief  respecting  yourself?  Do  you  not  believe  that  God 
has  elected  a  definite  number  of  the  human  family  to  eternal  salvation  ? 
Do  you  not  believe  that  none  but  the  elect  will  be  finally  saved?  Do 
you  not  believe  that  some  of  this  number  continue  in  wickedness  until 
the  very  day  of  their  death  ?  Do  you  not  believe  that  no  punishment 
will  hereafter  be  inflicted  on  the  regenerated  for  any  deeds  done 
in  the  body  ?  Do  you  not  believe  yourself  to  be  one  of  this  favored 
company?  Do  you  not  feel  morally  certain  that  you  shall  suffer  no 
misery  in  the  world  to  come  for  the  sins  you  may  here  commit?    Do 


153  LETTER  H. 

you  not  feel  aa  positive  that  you  shall  be  only  and  continually  happy  in 
the  next  existence,  as  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ballou  does  that  he  shall  ?  How 
then  do  your  cases  differ  ?  I  must  confess  that  I  am  unable  to  discern 
the  difference.  And  still  you  would  exclude  him  from  his  civil  rights, 
on  account  of  his  honest  religious  belief  But  if  you  entertain  precisely 
the  same  belief  respecting  yourself,  why  should  you  not  be  subjected  to 
the  same  disability  ?  Or  if  your  testimony  may  be  received  under  oath, 
why  may  not  his  ?  It  may  ;  and  unless  I  am  greatly  deceived,  you  will 
find  a  great  majority  of  the  community  as  ready  to  receive  his  evi- 
dence as  your  own,  and  as  willing  to  trust  his  integrity  as  that  of  be- 
lievers in  the  doctrine  of  election.  So  that  you  condemn  yourself, 
while  condemning  the  universalist. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  —  In  condemning  the  universalist  doctrine  a» 
dangerous,  do  you  not  pronounce  sentence  of  condemnation  on  you  own 
belief?  You  denounce  his  opinion,  that  God  makes  impenitent  sinners 
holy  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  as  of  immoral  tendency.  Is 
not  this  your  own  faith  ?  Do  you  not  believe  that  all  infants  are  born 
into  this  world  "  personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness,  unlike  and 
opposed  to  God  ?  "  Do  you  not  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  converts 
all  who  die  in  infancy,  so  that  their  depravity  produces  no  misery  in  the 
world  to  come  ?  Do  you  not  believe  tliat  many  who  live  immoral  lives 
are  changed  from  sin  to  holiness  in  the  hour  of  death  ?  How  then  does 
your  belief  upon  this  point  differ  from  that  of  the  universalist  ?  Is  not 
this  the  essence  of  his  system,  that  God  changes  the  polluted  soul  from 
depravity  to  purity  before  it  enters  another  existence  ?  You  certainly 
agree,  that  God  has  power  to  produce  such  a  change,  and  that  he  actu- 
ally effects  it  in  many  instances.  I  have  no  doubt,  you  will  aver  that 
there  is  an  infinite  difference  between  your  views  in  another  respect. 
You  will  affirm,  that  while  the  universalist  believes  God  will  change 
every  impenitent  soul,  so  that  no  one  shall  suffer  punishment  after  death ; 
you,  on  the  contrary,  believe  tliat  he  will  change  the  souls  of  the  elect 
only,  and  that  the  reprobate  must  be  eternally  damned.  I  well  know 
that  you  make  such  declarations  in  your  conversation,  preaching,  and 
publications.  But  do  not  actions  sometimes  speak  louder  than  words  ? 
When  an  orthodox  minister  has  buried  a  profligate  son,  what  has  been  his 
opinion  concerning  the  future  destiny  of  the  abandoned  child  ?  When 
an  orthodox  parent  has  consigned  to  the  grave  an  unconverted  daughter, 
what  has  been  his  belief  respecting  her  eternal  condition  ?  Have  they 
believed,  that  tlie  children  of  their  prayers  and  affections  were  sen- 
tenced to  unutterable,  unchangeable,  never-ending  burnings?  I  put 
the  question  to  your  own  conscience.  No  ;  scarcely  an  instance  can 
you  produce,  in  which  an  orthodox  Christian  has  really  believed  that 
an  endeared  relative,  however  wicked,  was  to  be  for  ever  damned.  So 
that  if  you  take  the  feelings,  the  wishes,  the  hopes,  the  true  faith  of 
your  denomination  for  the  standard  of  truth  on  this  question,  there  wiU 


LETTER  II.  153 

bft  but  few  souls  left  among  us  for  endless  torments.  All  this  results 
from  your  previous  belief,  that  God  may,  and  can,  and  actually  does 
convert  the  most  depraved  wretches  in  the  very  hour  of  death  ;  a  belief 
which  I  regard  as  exceedingly  erroneous.  All  therefore  are  willing  the 
Devil  should  have  sinful  strangers  and  enemies  ;  but  they  firmly  trust 
that  sovereign  grace  will  save  all  sinful  acquaintances  and  friends. 
And  such  a  belief  the  orthodox  do  not  hesitate  to  avow  in  conversation. 
Nay ;  they  even  proclaim  it  to  the  world  in  the  epitaphs  they  place  on 
the  tombstones  of  the  abandoned.  The  following  shall  suffice  as  one 
example  of  the  many  that  might  be  quoted  : 

"  The  mother's  sigh,  nor  friendship's  tear, 
Cannot  recall  thy  spirit  here  ; 
Yet  may  a  boon  more  blessed  be  given, 
Hope  tells  us,  we  shall  meet  in  heavenP 

Is  it  not  then  evident,  that  in  condemning  the  universalist  doctrine  as 
of  immoral  tendency,  you  pronounce  sentence  of  condemnation  on  your 
own  belief? 

3.  In  the  third  place,  —  In  denying  the  universalist  his  civil  rights, 
do  you  not  strike  a  death  blow  at  religious  liberty'}  Will  you  aver, 
that  he  does  not  make  the  Bible  the  standard  of  his  faith  and  prac- 
tice ?  Will  you  affirm,  that  he  is  unfaithful  in  his  examination  of 
the  Scriptures  ?  Will  you  declare,  that  he  is  not  sincere  in  his  pro- 
fession ?  No;  I  think  you  will  not  dare  to  heap  these  charges  upon 
his  head ;  for  you  must  know  that  he  has  the  same  right  and  reason  to 
accuse  you  of  the  same  offences.  And  if  you  can  neither  bring  nor 
substantiate  these  accusations  against  the  universalist,  your  rule  of  exclu- 
sion for  honest  religious  opinions  must  be  productive  of  endless  mis- 
chief. For  if  you  may  this  day  deprive  him  of  his  civil  rights  on  ac- 
count of  his  sincere  belief  on  the  subject  of  punishment,  you  may  to- 
morrow deprive  the  unitarian  of  his  rights  on  account  of  his  sentiments 
respecting  the  nature  of  the  Deity.  You  may  aver,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  trinity  is  plainly  revealed  on  every  page  of  the  Bible,  and  that 
whoever  rejects  this  fundamental  article  of  Christianity,  must  be  con- 
sidered an  atheist.  This  has  been  virtually  declared  by  more  than  one 
of  your  denomination.  But  you  need  not  stop  here.  Next  week  you 
may  affirm  that  the  doctrine  of  election  is  clearly  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and,  with  one  of  your  most  distinguished  divines,  aver,  that 
"  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  approve  of  the  doctrine  of  reprobation, 
in  order  to  be  saved."  On  this  plea,  you  may  proceed  to  deprive  the 
Methodists  of  their  equal  and  unalienable  rights.  In  your  plan  of  pro- 
scription, there  is  no  resting-place,  until  you  have  silenced  all  who  will 
not  assent  to  your  Calvinistic  creed.  Now  turn  the  tables.  Suppose  the 
majority  of  voters  next  year  should  prove  to  be  universalists.  Suppose 
they  should  act  on  your  principle,  and  deny  the  orthodox  minority  their 
civil  rights.  Would  they  not  have  as  much  right,  and  in  their  own 
20 


164  LETTER  II. 

opinion  as  much  reason,  for  such  a  proceeding,  as  you  now  have  for 
the  measure  which  you  propose  in  relation  to  them  ?  Is  it  possible  for 
you  to  think  their  system  of  faith  more  erroneous,  than  they  believe 
yours  to  be  ?  Is  it  possible  for  you  to  regard  tlieir  doctrine  of  punish- 
ment with  more  abhorrence,  tlian  they  feel  in  respect  to  your  belief  of 
eternal  decrees  and  endless  torments  ?  Why  then  would  they  not  be 
justified  in  acting  on  the  same  principle  of  condemnation,  when  they 
possess  the  power  of  executing  their  resolves  ?  I  can  see  no  difference 
between  the  two  cases.  If  you  may  deprive  any  man  of  his  civil  rights 
on  account  of  his  honest  religious  opinions,  because  you  are  the  ma- 
jority ;  I  know  not  why  any  otiier  sect  of  Christians  may  not  return  the 
compliment,  when  they  secure  the  majority.  Is  not  this  principle  of 
exclusion  wholly  subversive  of  religious  liberty  ?  Certainly.  For 
wherever  any  man  is  punished,  no  matter  what  the  mode  or  manner, 
for  his  religious  sentiments,  there  can  exist  no  religious  freedom.  And 
by  advocating  this  rule  of  proscription,  by  establishing  this  civil  dis- 
ability, do  you  not  aim  a  death  blow  at  free  inquiry  and  religious  lib- 
erty ? 

4.  In  the  fourth  place,  —  In  depriving  the  universalist  of  his  civil 
rights  on  account  of  his  religious  opinions,  do  you  adopt  the  most  Chris- 
tian remedy  for  the  existing  evil  ?  Just  look  at  some  of  the  consequences 
of  such  a  course  of  proceeding.  You  fear  he  will  perjure  himself,  if 
admitted  to  an  oath,  because  he  believes  such  a  crime  would  receive 
its  full  punishment  in  this  world.  To  prevent  the  offence,  therefore, 
you  would  remove  the  possibility  of  the  temptation ;  you  would  not 
permit  him  to  enter  upon  the  stand  of  legal  witnesses.  You  would 
ascertain  his  particular  belief  before  you  would  admit  his  testimony. 
Now  on  the  same  ground,  you  may  imprison  your  neighbour,  because 
you  fear  he  may  be  tempted  to  steal  your  property.  You  might  place 
him  beyond  the  possibility  of  temptation.  But  I  know  of  no  laws,  hu- 
man or  divine,  which  are  founded  on  such  unjust  principles.  All  with 
which  I  am  acquainted,  go  on  the  principle,  that  it  will  be  time  enough 
to  punish  the  criminal  after  the  offence  shall  have  been  committed. 
I  know  of  none  which  require  the  punishment  of  the  innocent,  for  fear 
he  may  be  tempted  to  commit  iniquity.  And  does  not  our  own  Consti- 
tution make  specific  provision  for  the  punishment  of  perjury  ?  When- 
ever a  person  is  convicted  of  such  a  crime,  will  not  the  law  be  exe- 
cuted ?  Is  not  this  the  proper  tribunal  for  all  such  offences  ?  If  the 
guilty  is  not  detected,  will  not  the  divine  punishment  be  as  certain,  as 
if  he  believed  in  endless  burnings  ?  And  should  not  the  credibility  of 
a  witness  be  determined,  not  by  his  religious  creed,  but  by  his  previous 
character  ?  And  on  this  ground,  have  not  the  communicants  in  uni- 
versalist churches  as  high  standing  for  strict  honesty,  rigid  impartiality, 
and  firm  integrity,  as  the  professors  in  orthodox  communions?  Would 
it  not  then  be  the  more  Christian  course  to  regard  such  persons  as 


LETTER  II.  155 

Christians,  so  far  as  they  profess  their  belief  in  revelation,  and  exhibit 
a  Christian  character  ?  Would  it  not  be  better  to  convince  them  of 
their  errors  by  fair  and  Scriptural  reasoning,  and  by  exhibiting  un- 
doubted evidence  of  the  certainty  of  a  future  righteous  retribution  ? 
Now,  Sir,  I  am  not  saying  all  this,  because  I  feel  any  partiality  for  the 
doctrine  of  no  punishment  after  death.  No ;  I  regard  this  opinion 
equally  erroneous  with  the  one  cherished  by  the  orthodox  on  this 
subject.  But  I  say  this,  because  I  believe  that  every  man,  who  makes 
the  Bible  his  standard  of  faith  and  practice,  and  exhibits  the  fruits 
of  the  gospel  in  his  daily  walk  and  conversation,  is  entitled-  to  the 
Christian  name,  rights,  and  privileges ;  and  because  I  believe  all 
Christian  believers  should  be  on  an  equal  standing  in  the  sight  of  our 
civil  government.  And  when  I  meet  an  individual  of  this  character, 
let  him  be  called  by  what  name  he  may,  let  me  think  him  in  what  error 
I  may,  I  will  endeavour  to  do  unto  him  as  I  would  have  him  do  unto  me. 
And  I  think  a  candid  consideration  of  this  subject  will  induce  you  to 
regard  this  as  the  most  Christian  remedy  for  the  supposed  evil.  For 
an  opposite  course  appears  to  me  subversive  of  free  inquiry,  religious 
liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism. 

VII.  Tracts. 

I  perceive.  Sir,  that  you  have  alluded  to  the  subject  of  religious  tracts. 
You  assert  that  unitarians  accuse  the  orthodox  of  being  raving  mad, 
and  destitute  of  modesty  and  humility,  because  they  engage  in  their 
publication.  You  have  probably  come  as  near  the  truth  in  this  state- 
ment, as  in  many  others  in  your  late  pamphlet.  I  think  you  would  find 
it  very  difficult  to  mention  the  unitarian  who  ever  made  such  an  accu- 
sation. But  for  my  own  part,  I  am  free  to  confess,  that  some  of  the 
measures  adopted  by  your  leaders  for  the  distribution  of  tracts  appear 
to  me  very  singular.  In  order  to  foist  them  into  unitarian  families,  they 
have  come  in  the  darkness  of  night,  and  put  them  in  our  well-curbs  and 
our  work-shops,  scattered  them  in  our  door-yards  and  our  gardens, 
thrown  them  into  our  entries  and  our  out-houses,  and  tied  them  to  our 
pump-handles  and  our  door-latches-  They  have  stuffed  them  into  the 
hats  and  pockets  of  our  dependents,  thrust  them  into  the  hands  and 
bosoms  of  our  children,  and  concealed  them  among  the  leaves  of  our 
borrowed  books.  They  have  scattered  them  in  our  public  and  private 
walks,  thrown  them  to  us  from  waggons  and  stage-coaches,  and  strew- 
ed them  in  bar-rooms,  and  canal-boats,  and  steam-boats,  from  Maine  to 
New  Orleans.  And  in  these  various  ways,  they  have  become  as  plenty 
in  some  of  our  houses,  as  were  the  frogs  in  the  dwellings  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, not  to  say  as  noisome. 

But  this  is  not  all.  A  new  method  of  sowing  this  precious  seed  has 
lately  been  invented,  and  has  already  been  put  into  extensive  operation. 
Let  me  illustrate  this  assertion  by  an  example  of  recent  occurrence. 
The  circumstances  are  briefly  these.  There  are  about  one  thousand 
inhabitants  in  the  place,    They  all  attend  a  unitarian  meeting.    One 


156  LETTER  II. 

of  your  disorganizers  enters  the  peaceful  fold,  and  succeeds  in  turning 
some  of  the  flock  from  their  present  pastx)r.  They  are  organized  into 
a  feeble  church.  Their  secession  takes  frooi  the  annual  salary  from 
five  to  ten  dollars.  A  shanty  is  thrown  up  for  a  place  of  worship; 
and  a  minister  is  ordained  over  them.  Some  of  this  new  society 
are  in  indigent  circumstances  ;  others  are  deeply  in  debt  to  their  uni- 
tarian neighbours  ;  all  together  they  are  unable  to  pay  but  one  third  of 
their  teacher's  small  salary  ;  and  but  few  of  the  number  are  particular- 
ly distinguished  either  for  superior  acquirements,  or  superior  morals. 
In  this  situation,  they  resolve  to  present  every  family  in  the  whole  town 
with  a  religious  tract  on  the  first  of  each  month.  Agents  are  appoint- 
ed ;  the  work  is  commenced  with  impartiality  ;  no  individual,  not  even 
the  unitarian  minister,  is  neglected.  They  feel  justified  in  spending 
their  time  and  money  for  this  purpose,  when  other  important  duties 
claim  their  attention.  Such  is  an  exact  and  true  description  ;  and  there 
are  doubtless  many  similar  instances  within  this  Commonwealth.  How . 
much  modesty  and  humility  are  exhibited  in  such  proceedings,  I  leave 
you  to  determine. 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  the  case.  These  agents  will  feel  them- 
selves insulted,  if  you  either  refuse  to  receive  their  offering,  or  ofier 
them  a  unitarian  tract  in  return.  This  assertion  may  be  illustrated  by 
two  examples.  The  first  is  this.  The  tract-distributer  knocked  at 
the  front  door  of  the  house  of  a  wealthy  and  learned  unitarian  Chris- 
tian. He  told  the  servant  that  he  wished  to  leave  a  tract  for  the  family. 
The  gentleman  overheard  his  remark,  and  politely  informeil  him,  that 
he  felt  qualified  to  select  the  reading  for  his  own  house-hold,  and 
was  able  to  pay  for  his  books.  The  pious  saint  burst  into  a  rage, 
said  he  did  not  expect  such  treatment  in  a  Christian  land,  and  insisted 
on  leaving  the  pamphlet.  The  other  case  is  this.  I  passed  down  the 
Ohio  river  in  the  same  steam-boat  with  one  of  your  officious  tract-dis- 
tributers. He  was  frequently  thrusting  his  dingy  publications  into  the 
very  face  and  eyes  of  the  travellers.  He  was  asked  how  he  should  re- 
gard the  conduct  of  any  one  who  refused  his  gratuitous  offering.  He 
said  he  should  consider  it  ungentlemanly  and  unchristian.  A  unitari- 
an tract  was  then  offered  to  him.  He  cast  his  eye  over  the  title-page, 
and  shrunk  back  as  from  a  deadly  serpent.  He  was  reminded  of  his 
former  observation,  and  pronounced  self-condemned.  But  neither 
shame  nor  entreaty  could  induce  him  to  read  a  word  of  the  heretical 
doctrine.  He  was  literally  obedient  to  the  command  of  your  leaders, 
who  have  cautioned  their  readers  to  avoid  unitarian  publications  as 
they  would  a  cup  of  poison.  These  are  mere  specimens  of  daily  oc- 
currences. 

Now,  Sir,  would  you  exhibit  such  proceedings  as  the  most  worthy  ex- 
amples of  orthodox  modesty  and  humility  ?  Let  me  endeavour  to  bring 
this  measure  home  to  your  own  bosom.    Suppose  then  a  very  feeble 


LETTER  11.  167 

unitarian  society  should  now  be  organized  in  your  neighbourhood. 
Suppose  it  should  consist  of  some  ten  or  a  dozen  males  of  little  educa- 
tion or  influence  or  usefulness ;  and  some  twenty  or  thirty  females. 
Suppose  they  should  send  you  a  copy  of  the  following  document :  "  At 
a  meeting  of  the  first  unitarian  church  in  South  Andover  the  follow- 
ing preamble  and  resolves  were  unanimously  adopted.  Whereas  di- 
vine Providence  has  surrounded  us  by  those  who  have  embraced  soul- 
destroying  errors,  and  are  hastening  to  perdition  ;  and  whereas  the 
Theological  Seminary  in  this  place  has  essentially  renounced  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  set  up  a  human  standard  of  religious  belief;  and  whereas  we 
cannot  answer  to  our  final  Judge  with  an  approving  conscience,  unless 
we  do  all  in  our  power  to  stay  this  destructive  heresy  ;  —  therefore  re- 
solved, that  we  will  distribute  a  Christian  tract  to  every  family  in  this 
heathenish  settlement  on  the  first  of  each  month;  and  also  resolved, 
that  since  the  divinity  school  on  the  Hill  may  be  regarded  as  the  foun- 
tain-head of  this  pernicious  infidelity,  we  will  present  to  every  professor 
and  student  two  Chrislian  tracts  on  the  first  of  each  month."  Suppose 
that  on  the  first  day  of  next  January,  while  you  are  at  breakfast,  you 
should  observe  a  female  busybody  pass  by  your  window.  Suppose 
one  of  your  younger  children  should  answer  to  her  rap,  and  receive 
with  the  specified  tracts,  this  observation :  "  I  am  the  agent  for 
distributing  these  religious  works  in  this  school  district.  Here  are 
two  for  your  father  and  the  rest  for  the  family.  I  hope  you  will  all 
peruse  them  prayerfully,  and  that  they  may  be  blessed  to  your  con- 
version to  truth  and  godliness."  Suppose  she  should  then  extend  her 
errand  of  mercy  to  each  of  the  students.  This  would  serve  to  let  you 
understand  what  is  now  doing  at  the  instigation  of  your  leaders.  I 
hope  you  will  seriously  meditate  upon  this  statement,  and  let  us  know 
how  much  modesty  and  humility  would  be  indicated  by  such  an  un- 
dertaking. I  know  of  no  way  of  bringing  this  business  home  to  your 
people  but  by  returning  the  compliment. 

VIII.  Switzerland. 

In  relation  to  the  religious  persecutions  of  Switzerland,  you  have 
fallen  into  a  most  egregious  mistake.  I  will  quote  the  passage  from 
your  Letter.  These  are  your  words.  "  We  look  to  Switzerland ;  vje  see 
the  wandering  exile  pastors  there  thrust  out  from  their  own  country,  or 
languishing  in  dungeons,  and  their  families  he:ging  their  bread,  because 
these  dauntless  heralds  of  salvation  have  dared  to  preach  Christ  and  him 
crucified.  We  cankot  help  knowing  that  unitarianism  has 
DONE  THIS."  Now  this  last  assertion  has  not  the  least  foundation  in 
truth.  Unitarianism  has  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  these  per- 
secutions to  which  you  allude.  The  literal  fact  is  this.  One  party  of 
Calvinists  have  been  persecuting  another  party,  for  being  more  zealous 
and  rigid  in  their  views  and  measures.  And  I  will  now  prove  the  five 
following  propositions.  First,  that  the  regular  church  in  the  cantons, 
of  Vaud  and  Berne,  in  Switzerland,  has  caused  the  persecution  of  some 


168  LETTER  II. 

of  their  brethren  for  separating  from  their  national  religious  establish- 
ment. Secondly,  that  these  persecutors  believe  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity,  and  preach  the  deity,  atonement,  and  grace  of  Christ.  Thirdly^ 
that  these  persecutors  still  retain  the  name  of  Presbyterians  and  Cal- 
vinists.  Fourthly,  that  these  persecutors  still  give  their  assent  to  the 
Calvinistic  confession  of  faith.  And  Jijlhly,  that  they  have  been  among 
the  persecutors  of  the  unitarians  at  Geneva. 

And  first,  take  a  passaj^c  from  the  Eclectic  Review,  the  standard 
ortiiodox  journal  of  England.  "  The  canton  of  Vaud,  in  Switzerland, 
is  about  the  size  of  the  county  of  Essex ;  its  population  is  estimated  at 
a  little  more  than  one  hundred  and  forty-two  thousand.  It  had  been 
for  almost  three  centuries,  dependent  upon  the  canton  of  Berne  ;  but 
the  changes  consequent  upon  the  French  revolution  raised  it  to  the 
rank  of  a  separate  canton.  The  seat  of  government  is  Lausanne,  and 
the  supreme  power  is  lodged  in  an  aristocratical  Council  of  State.  The 
people  have  long  borne  the  character  of  enlightened  and  liberal ;  hut 
recent  events  have  forcibly  and  pain/idly  proved  thai  they  do  not  possess 
a  government  worthy  of  themy  I  will  now  give  you  an  extract  from 
one  of  the  petitions  presented  to  the  Lausanne  Council  of  State  by 
some  of  the  persecuted  Christians.  "The  undersigned  have  separated 
from  the  national  church  of  this  canton,  and  have  formed  themselves 
into  a  church  according  to  Scriptural  order,  as  appointed  by  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  under  which  discipline  they  desire  to  live 
and  die."  These  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  separation  from  the 
national  church  was  the  cause  of  persecutions  in  Switzerland. 

Take,  secondly,  an  extract  from  the  Letters  of  Canonicus  to  Dr.  Chan- 
ning,  written  by  the  late  Rev.  Mr.  Shed,  orthodox  minister  in  Abing- 
ton.  Here  it  is.  "  In  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  trimty,  so  far  as  I 
can  learn,  that  is  still  held  in  the  canton  of  Vaud."  Remember  that 
this  acknowledgement  comes  from  one  of  your  own  men,  when  writing 
on  this  very  subject  of  dispute.  Take  another  extract  from  the  ortho- 
dox Eclectic  Review.  These  are  the  important  words.  "  One  of  the 
two  professors  of  divinity  in  the  academy  of  Lausanne  had  particularly 
direrted  his  Lectures  to  the  confirmntion  of  the  Scripture  doctrines  con- 
ceming  the  deity,  atonement,  and  grace  of  Christ.  The  effect 
upon  liis  auditors  was  great.  A  new  life  and  energy  appeared  among 
the  students  and  the  younger  ministers.  Evangelical  principles  were 
not  left  to  slumber  in  the  formalities  of  the  academic  hall,  but  were 
brought  forth  into  the  exemplification  of  experience  and  action.  The 
professor  became  alarmed.  He  seems  to  have  thought  that  the  pupils  had 
no  right  to  go  beyond  the  length  of  his  cord;  and,  O  the  xctakness  and 
wickedness  oj  the  human  hi  art !  ukcame  a  chief  instrument  in  pro- 
curing   THOSE     LEGISLATIVE     ENACTMENTS     WHICH    HAVE    BROUGHT 

SCANDAL  UPON  HIS  COUNTRY."  Thcse  are  sufficient  to  prove  that 
the  chief  persecutors  believed  the  trinity,  and  preached  the  deity, 
atonement,  and  grace  of  Christ 


LETTER  II.  159 

Take,  thirdly,  another  extract  from  the  orthodox  Eclectic  Review. 
Speaking  of  Lausanne,  the  writer  observes :  "  Its  ecclesiastical  estab- 
lishment is  Protestant  and  Presbyterian,  nominally  Calvinistic."  The 
orthodox  ministers  of  London  held  a-  public  meeting  "  to  express  tlieir 
abhorrence  of  the  persecution  and  their  sympathy  with  the  perse- 
cuted." Take  one  extract  from  their  resolutions  on  the  occasion. 
This  is  the  passage.  "  That  it  is  with  astonishment  and  sorrow  that 
this  body  has  received,  from  different  and  credible  sources,  the  infor- 
mation, that  in  Switzerland,  which  used  to  be  regarded  as  an  asylum 
of  those  who  fled  from  persecution,  and  particularly  in  the  Canton  of 
Vaud,  under  a  Protestant  government  and  Presbyterian  church,  a 
severe  persecution  has  been  for  more  than  a  year  exercised  upon 
peaceable  citizens,  of  spotless  moral  and  political  character,  for  no 
alleged  crime,  but  the  fact  of  their  thinking  it  their  duty  to  dissent 
from  the  church  establishment  of  that  country,  and  their  attempting 
accordingly  to  hold  assemblies  for  religious  worship,  in  the  way  which 
to  them  appears  most  agreeable  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  most  con- 
ducive to  their  own  moral  improvement."  These  are  sufficient  to  prove 
that  the  persecutors  are  known  by  the  name  of  Calvinists  and  Pres- 
byterians. 

Take,  fourthly,  another  extract  from  the  orthodox  Eclectic  Review. 
Here  it  is.  "  Our  readers  are  probably  well  acquainted  with  the  fact, 
that  the  doctrines  which  aroused  the  horror  of  the  Landamman  and  the 
Council  of  State,  were  no  other  than  the  very  confession  of  faith  ivhick, 

SINCE  FIFTEEN  HUNDRED  AND  SIXTY-SIX,  HAS  BEEN  THE  LEGAL 
FORMULARY    OF    THEIR    OWN    NATIONAL    CHURCH."      Take  a  qUOtatiOD 

from  an  Address  to  the  Council  of  State  by  three  of  those  ministers 
who  were  banished.  Here  is  the  passage.  "  Our  fathers  having  been 
brought  to  a  true  knowledge  of  the  gospel  and  faith  in  it,  deemed  it 
their  duty,  both  for  the  information  of  the  other  Reformed  churches  of 
Europe,  and  as  a  means  of  preventing  the  return  of  false  doctrines 
among  themselves,  to  draw  up  declarations  of  their  belief.  The  Hel- 
vetic Confession  of  Faith  was  then  published,  and  was  approved  by 
the  churches  of  France,  England,  Holland,  Poland,  Scotland,  Hungary, 
and  Germany.  That  confession  remains  in  the  midst  of  us,  an  inestima- 
ble monument  of  the  true  and  solid  piety  of  our  ancestors  in  general, 
and  particularly  of  their  spiritual  guides  ;  of  their  undisguised  and  sin- 
cere adoration  of  God,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  Our 
CONFESSION  OF  FAITH,  the  plain  and  faithful  expositions  of  truths 
which  bring  salvation  to  every  one  who  believeth,  is  preserved  in 
FORM,  but  set  aside  in  substance."  These  are  sufficient  to  prove  that 
the  persecutors  still  give  their  assent  to  the  Calvinistic  confession  of 
faith. 

And,  finally,  who  have  been  concerned  in  persecuting  the  unitarians 
at  Geneva  ?  Let  this  question  be  answered  by  one  of  their  first  divines. 


i60  LETTER  II. 

These  are  the  words  of  Professor  Cheneviere.  "  We  may  number 
among  the  antagonists  of  the  Geneva  clergy,  the  pastors  of  Lausanne^ 
who  br^'ke  off  all  connexion  with  them.  M  their  head  was  Dean  Curtate 
who  took,  every  opportunity  of  speaking  and  writing  cLgainsl  the  Genevans^ 
with  all  his  wonted  violence.  He  laughed  at  the  attacks  on  his  neigh- 
bours, which  he  beheld  from  the  height  of  his  orthodoxy  as  from  an 
impregnable  fort ;  he  was  ill  able  to  conceal  his  joy,  when  he  saw 
them  insulted,  nor  did  he  show  much  repugnance  to  insulting  them 
himself.  This  man,  otherwise  intelligent,  well  informed,  and  full  of 
zeal,  is  violently  prejudiced  against  Geneva  ;  he  would  speak  of  that 
city  in  the  words  formerly  used,  Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Naza- 
reth ?  "  This  said  Dean  is  the  man  whom  the  orthodox  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith 
acknowledged  to  "  hold  the  Deity  of  Christ.''''  And  these  are  the  perse- 
cutors, both  of  the  unitarians,  and  of  their  ow;n  more  zealous  Calvinistic 
brethren.  I  could  produce  an  abundance  of  evidence  in  support  of  the 
questions  stated ;  but  I  have  quoted  enough  from  orthodox  writers  of 
acknowledged  credit  to  prove  my  five  propositions.  So  that  there  re- 
mains no  cause  for  doubt  on  this  question.  The  persecutions  have 
been  carried  on  by  one  orthodox  party  against  another  which  is  a  little 
more  rigid  and  zealous.  Very  much  like  the  war  waged  by  Dr. 
Beecher  and  his  New  England  friends  against  Dr.  Beman  and  his 
New  York  friends,  because  they  made  use  of  more  violent  measures 
to  get  up  their  revivals.  I  feel  constrained  to  aver,  that  if  you  had 
known  any  thing  about  the  religious  persecutions  of  Switzerland,  you 
could  not  help  knowing,  that  unitarianism  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  them;  that  they  have  been  perpetrated  by  those  who  believe  the 
doctrine  of  the  trinity ;  who  preach  the  deity,  atonement,  and  grace 
of  Christ;  who  assent  to  the  Calvinistic  confession  of  faith  ;  and  who 
are  called  Presbyterians  and  Calvinists. 

IX.    Conscience. 

Perhaps  you  will  now  aver,  that  you  and  the  other  leaders  of  your 
party  have  beeli  actuated  in  all  your  measures  by  the  dictates  of  your 
conscience.  Sir,  what  is  conscience  ?  Is  it  a  guide  of  conduct  any 
farther  than  it  coincides  with  the  plain  instructions  of  Jesus  ?  Can  we 
innocently  follow,  what  we  call  its  dictates,  in  opposition  to  the  explicit 
injunctions  of  the  gospel  ?  If  we  may,  the  Bible  is  no  sure  guide  of 
duty.  If  we  may,  the  heathen  may  as  well  remain  in  ignorance  of  tlie 
Scriptures ;  for  they  already  follow  their  conscience,  and,  on  this  ground, 
one  conscience  must  be  as  good  as  another.  What !  Can  we  safely 
follow  those  suggestions  of  our  minds  which  we  call  tlie  dictates  of 
conscience,  in  open  disobedience  to  the  plain  precepts  of  revelation  ? 
la  not  this  a  most  dangerous  principle  ?  Will  it  not  lead  to  tlie  most 
abominable  practices  ? 

Will  lead,  did  I  say  ?    Has  it  not  lead  thousands  of  professed  Chris- 
tians to  commit  the  most  unchristian  deeds  ?    What  was  the  plea  of 


LETTER  II.  161 

James  and  John  for  invoking  fire  from  heaven  on  the  opposers  of  their 
Master  ?  Conscience.  What  was  the  plea  of  the  heloved  disciple  for 
forbidding  one  who  did  not  follow  in  his  company  to  preach  the  gospel 
and  work  miracles  ?  Conscience.  What  was  the  plea  of  the  early- 
converts  for  dividing  into  sects  and  calling  themselves  by  the  names  of 
their  favorite  preachers  ?  Conscience.  What  was  the  plea  of  the 
Catholic  Church  for  erecting  the  holy  inquisition  and  murdering  thou- 
sands of  believers  who  dissented  from  her  creed  ?  Conscience.  What 
was  the  plea  of  Calvin  for  imprisoning  and  banishing  Bolsec,  and  caus_ 
ing  the  death  of  Servetus  ?  Conscience.  What  was  the  plea  of  our 
Pilgrim  fathers  for  expelling  the  baptists,  and  hanging  the  witches, 
and  Idlling  the  quakers  ?  Conscience.  And  is  it  a  sufficient  excuse 
for  such  unrighteous  deeds  to  say  they  were  perpetrated  in  obedience 
to  the  dictates  of  conscience  ?  Were  the  persons  concerned  exempt 
from  all  guilt  because,  their  cruel  barbarities  were  performed  in  com- 
pliance with  the  pretended  sanctions  of  revsaled  religion? 

And,  Reverend  Sir,  permit  me  to  ask  you  one  fair  question.     Can 
you  reconcile  all  the  measures  of  the  orthodox  party  with  the  plain 
commands  of  Jesus  ?     I  have  not  room  to  enter  into  many  particulars. 
Try  their  proceedings  by  this  one  rule  of  our  Saviour :     "  All  things 
whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  to 
them."    Now  compare  many  of  those  actions  which  I  have  had  occa- 
sion to  introduce  into  this  publication,  with  this  divine  direction.     Can 
you^  aver,  that  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party,  in  the  use  they  make 
of  human  creeds ;   in  their  terms  of  ministerial  intercourse  ;  in  their 
ecclesiastical    tribunals ;    in  their    measures  for   establishing    feeble 
churches  ;  in  their  denunciations  of  unitarians  ;  in  their  statements  re- 
specting the  Reformers,  Pilgrims,  Catholics,  Universalists  ;  and  in  all 
their  other  measures  for  maintaining  and  propagating  their  religious 
faith  ; —  can  you  honestly  aver,  that,  in  all  these  particulars,  the  leaders 
of  your  party  have  done  towards  unitarians  as  they  would  have  had 
unitarians  do  towards  themselves  in  exchange  of  circumstances?    I  put 
this  question  to  your  conscience.     I  ask  you  to  answer  it  candidly,'  as 
in  the  presence  oT  your  final  Judge.     Place  yourself  in  the  situation 
of  unitarians.     Remember  that  they  are  entitled  to  equal  rights  and 
privileges  with  other  men.     Remember  that  they  have  as  much  at  stake 
as  other  Christians,  and  have  no  more  interest  in  embracing  error  than 
the  orthodox.     Remember  that  they  are  endowed  with  all  the  attributes 
of  human  nature  ;  and  that  their  only  crime  consists  in  obeying  Jesus 
Christ  according  to  the  best  of  their  judgment.     If  when  you  consider 
these  things,  you  admit  that  the  orthodox  have  not  in  all  these  instances 
obeyed  the  golden  rule;  then  you  confess  that  they  have  sometimes 
mistaken  their  will,  their  party  spirit,  their  prejudice,  the  remains  of 
their  corrupt  nature,  for  the  dictates  of  a  Christian  conscience.    But 
21 


162  LETTER  n. 

if  you  contend  tliat  in  all  these  things,  they  have  strictly  done  unto 
others,  as  they  would  have  others  do  unto  them,  then  I  must  be  per- 
mitted to  thank  my  heavenly  Father,  that  all  Christians  do  not  possess 
such  a  conscience.  And  on  this  principle,  I  know  not  why  you  may  not 
adopt  any  measures  which  you  can  obtain  power  to  execute. 

But,  Sir,  before  you  recommend  obedience  to  such  an  unhallowed 
principle,  I  beseech  you  to  reflect  seriously  on  the  consequences.  Sir, 
it  is  this  plea  of  conscience  for  the  commission  of  unchristian  deeds, 
which  has  so  sadly  disgraced  and  so  nearly  ruined  the  Christian  church 
in  ages  past.  There  is  scarcely  an  article  in  the  Christian  code,  which 
has  not  been  violated  by  zealous  Christians  under  this  plea  of  con- 
science. I  regard  this  as  the  fundamental  error  of  Christendom  at  the 
present  day.  I  consider  this  error  as  infinitely  more  detrimental  to  the 
cause  of  Christ,  than  tlie  erroneous  speculations  of  all  the  Christian 
errorists  in  the  world.  For  it  is  a  practical  error.  It  strikes  at  the 
very  foundation  of  Christianity.  It  destroys  all  confidence  in  revela- 
tion. It  sets  up  the  unsubdued  inclinations  of  every  fanatic  or  hypocrite 
as  the  inspired  rule  of  duty.  I  fear  this  error  is  producing  a  blighting 
influence  in  your  denomination,  to  say  nothing  of  any  others.  I  do 
hope,  for  the  salvation  of  our  common  faith,  that  a  reformation  will  im- 
mediately be  effected  in  all  denominations.  I  do  hope  the  plain  teach- 
in  o"s  of  Jesus  will  be  made  the  only  standard  of  faith  and  practice  by 
all  who  profess  to  be  his  followers.  Nothing  but  this  can  ever  produce  a 
genuine  revival  of  pure  and  undefiled  religion.  Nothing  but  this  can 
ever  secure  union  and  harmony  among  Christians.  Nothing  but  this 
can  ever  cause  the  glad  tidings  of  the  Gospel  to  be  received  by  the 
unbelieving  world. 

X.    CoNCLusiojy. 
Reverend  Sir, 

My  Letters  on  Religious  Liberty  are  now  finished.  When  I  wrote 
my  introduction,  I  firmly  believed  that  a  sufficient  number  of  facts  was 
at  hand  to  establish  my  positions.  But  I  had  then  no  conception  of  the 
multitutlo  of  cases  which  have  since  come  to  my  knowledge.  If  my 
statements  and  arguments  make  a  one-hundredth  part  of  the  impression 
upon  the  minds  of  others,  that  the  investigation  of  this  subject  has  made 
upon  my  own,  I  shall  be  fully  satisfied.  For  in  such  a  case,  the  gene- 
ral conclusion  of  the  public  will  be,  that  the  following  proposition  has 
been  perfectly  demonstrated :  The  measures  attempted  and  adopted 
by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  denomination,  for  the  preservation  and 
propagation  of  their  peculiar  views  of  religion,  are  subversive  of  free 
inquiry,  religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  Congregationalism. 

Should  cither  you  or  any  of  your  party  be  disposed  to  notice  this 
publication  in  any  form  whatever,  I  hope  you  will  remember  six  things 
in  particular.    I  hope  you  will  remember  that  the  question  at  issue  be- 


LETTER  ir.  163 

tween  yourself  and  unitarians  is  not,  —  Whether  the  orthodox  fre- 
quently talk,  and  write,  and  preach,  and  publish  about  free  inquiry, 
religious  liberty,  and  the  principles  of  congreg-ationalism.  Look  at 
Goldsmith's  Englishman  within  the  walls  of  a  prison.  Because  he  was 
eternally  vaporing  about  liberty,  do  you  conclude  that  he  enjoyed 
perfect  freedom  ? 

I  hope  you  will  also  remember,  that  the  question  is  not,  —  Whether 
the  orthodox  are  sincere  and  conscientious  in  all  their  talking,  and 
preaching,  and  praying,  and  publishing,  and  acting,  in  relation  to  unita- 
rians. Who  was  ever  more  sincere  and  conscientious  than  Paul,  when 
he  persecuted  the  early  converts,  and  consented  to  the  death  of  the 
first  Christian  martyr?  But  does  this  convince  you  that  such  conduct 
was  justifiable,  because  instigated  by  the  dictates  of  a  misguided  con- 
science ? 

I  hope  you  will  likewise  remember,  that  the  question  is  not, — 
Whether  one  or  a  few  of  the  many  facts  adduced  in  this  publication 
may  be  disproved,  or  satisfactorily  explained  ?  This  is  indeed  possible. 
For  I  have  selected  the  cases  recorded  from  a  great  variety  of  docu- 
ments. I  have  aimed  to  take,  not  always  the  most  striking,  but  those 
which  could  be  most  easily,  readily,  and  conclusively  proved  hy  legal  evi- 
dence. If,  in  stating  so  great  a  number,  there  should  happen  to  be  one 
or  more,  not  so  much  to  the  purpose,  or  not  so  well  attested,  or  not  so 
true  in  all  its  details,  it  would  be  nothing  strange  ;  and  would  by  no 
means  weaken  or  destroy  the  general  conclusion.  I  do  not  say  this, 
because  I  suspect  any  thing  of  the  kind ;  but  because  some  of  your 
writers  are  too  apt  to  forget  the  rules  of  honorable  controversy.  If  they 
can  find  one  defective  argument  in  one  hundred,  the  ninety  and  nine 
which  they  cannot  answer  are  neglected,  and  the  unsound  one  is  held 
up  before  the  ignorant  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  writer's  accuracy  and 
reasoning. 

I  hope  you  will  further  remember,  that  the  question  is  not,  —  Whether 
the  unitarians  are  guilty  of  the  same  or  more  aggravated  oifences  ? 
For  if  you  could  prove  the  truth  of  every  charge  I  have  quoted  from 
your  writers  ;  if  you  could  make  the  world  believe  that  they  are  totally 
depraved,  wholly  averse  to  all  good,  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  very 
demons  in  human  form,  your  object  would  not  be  accomplished.  For 
all  this  would  neither  relieve  you  from  the  accusations  preferred,  nor 
lighten  the  burden  of  proof  by  which  they  are  supported.  I  do  not 
say  this  either,  because  I  admit  the  justness  of  the  orthodox  denuncia- 
tions ;  but  because  some  of  your  writers  are  too  apt  to  leave  the  real 
point  at  issue,  when  charged  with  illiberal  and  unchristian  measures. 
I  have  no  wish  to  justify  any  thing  wrong  in  one  party  any  more  than 
in  another.  I  have  nothing  to  say  for  or  against  the  unitarian  denomi- 
nation. My  object  has  been  to  advance  the  evidence  in  support  of  my 
charges  against  the  orthodox  leaders. 


164  LETTER  II. 

I  hope  moreover  you  will  remember,  that  the  question  is  not, —  wheth- 
er the  writer  of  these  letters  is  a  mere  boy,  who  has  embraced  heretical 
opinions  ?  I  can  indeed  lay  no  claim  to  «,'rey  hairs,  and  as  to  my  religious 
sentiments,  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject.     I  have  stated 
facts.    For  the  truth  and  accuracy  of  these,  the  documents  now  in  my 
possession,  and  the  individuals  who  have  furnished  them,  are  responsible. 
I  have  spoken  with  great  freedom.  I  have  aimed  to  call  things  by  their 
right  names.      The  provocation  demanded  this.      The  times  require 
this.      Religion  sanctions  this.      I  have  no  ill  will  tov/ards  a  single 
Christian  of  orthodox  sentiments.  I  have  no  love  for  controversy.  Ortho- 
dox usurpations  have  driven  me,  contrary  to  my  wishes,  my  feelings,  my 
early  associations,  my  very  nature,  into  the  field  of  theological  warfare. 
I  am  not  the  man  to  see  my  dearest  rights  wrested  from  me,  and   the 
precious  truths  of  Jesus  slandered,  without  an  efibrt  for  their  preserva- 
tion.   I  undertook  the  present  work  of  my  own  accord.    I  could  find  no 
one  who  thought  your  attack  on  unitarians  worthy  of  an  answer.  I  view- 
ed the  subject  in  a  different  light.  I  wished  to  aid  the  cause  of  religious 
liberty.  I  have  sincerely  endeavoured  to  write  in  a  Christian  spirit.     I 
am  a  plain  spoken  man,  and  may  have  unconsciously  offended.     If  I 
have  uttered  one  unchristian  expression,  I  heartily  ask  forgiveness. 
But  if  I  am  a  young  man  and  my  opinions  are  unitarian,  these  circum- 
stances should  have  no  unfavorable  effect  on  the  merits  of  the  present 
publication.     I  shall  regard  personal  attacks,  or  sarcastic  sneers,  or 
cold  ridicule,  as  no  sufficient  answer  to  my  plain  statements,  and  logical 
conclusions. 

I  hope  you  will  remember  finally,  that  the  question,  the  Jirst  question 
at  issue  is  this  :  w^re  the  principal  statements  in  this  publication  substan- 
tially/ true  ?  You  will  not  forget  that  the  second  is  like  unto  the  first : 
Do  these  facts  fully  and  fairly  demonstrate  the  tndh  of  the  disputed  pro- 
position'^ I  have  no  personal  claims  on  you  for  an  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions. I  have  no  intention  of  urging  any  so  far  as  1  am  personally  con- 
cerned. But  I  do  think  you  stand  pledged  to  the  Christian  public, 
either  to  prorc  that  these  statements  are /cfise;  or  to  show  their  con- 
sistency with  religious  liberty,  free  inquiry,  and  the  principles  of  Con- 
gregationalism. I  do  think  that  you  are  under  solemn  obligations  to 
the  religious  community,  either  to  retract  several  of  your  declarations 
which  tiiese  facts  prove  incorrect ;  or  to  establish  their  truth  by  more 
satisfactory  evidence  than  your  mere  assertion.  As  one  of  this  public 
I  call  upon  you  to  pursue  one  or  the  other  of  these  courses.  I  cannot 
find  a  more  appropriate  conclusion  than  is  furnished  in  your  own  words. 
"I  could  wish  the  call  on  you  to  do  this  had  fallen  into  better  hands 
than  mine.  But  as  the  unpleasant  task  has  not  to  my  knowledge  been 
undertaken,  I  have  ventured  upon  it  through  a  sense  of  duty.  I  can  only 
appeal  to  the  good  sense,  and  equity,  and  candor  of  the  community, 
for  a  justification  of  my  course.  If  these  condemn  me,  then  let  me  stand 


LETTER  n.  165 

condemned.  If  not,  then  I  shall  at  least  have  the  satisfaction  of  believ- 
ing, THAT  WHAT  I  HAVE  DOXE  MAT  CONTRIBUTE  TO  BRING  MORE 
INTO  LIGHT,  CERTAIN  MATTERS,  WHICH  IT  HAS  NOW  BECOME  HIGH 
TIME    THAT    OUR    COMMUNITY    SHOULD    MORE    FULLY     UNDERSTAND." 

Yours  respectfully, 

BERNARD  WHITMAN, 
Waltham,  December^  1830. 


NOTE. 


I  WISH  to  make  five  remarks.  First,  I  sincerely  thank  those  indi- 
viduals who  have  furnished  me  with  facts  for  the  present  publica- 
tion. Secondly,  my  only  apology  for  not  making  more  use  of  their  com- 
munications is  this  ;  My  pamphlet  has  already  extended  to  four  times 
the  length  I  originally  intended.  Thirdly,  I  ask  the  favor  to  retain 
their  manuscripts  and  printed  documents  in  my  possession,  until  I  learn 
whether  I  shall  have  any  further  use  for  them.  Fourthly,  I  would  re- 
quest all  who  may  know  of  any  orthodox  measures  subversive  of  relig- 
ious liberty,  to  transmit  to  me  an  accurate  account  of  the  same,  so  that 
I  may  feel  prepared  for  a  new  and  enlarged  edition.  Fifthly,  I  in- 
tended to  send  by  mail  a  copy  of  this  work,  to  all  who  have  been 
troubled  with  my  request  for  aid  in  the  undertaking;  but  I  find 
the  postage  will  amount  to  more  than  the  price  of  the  book.  I  therefore 
request  all  such  to  take  advantage  of  the  first  private  opportunity 
in  sending  either  to  me,  or  to  my  publishers,  for  a  copy  of  the  Letters 
on  Religious  Liberty. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1  -year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

SEP  05  2000 


12,000(11/96) 


YC159U28 


//4  -7/ 

lA/r 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


v;»lV^>^^« 


^^^"^"WBn 


feO^V,jf?Si 


v< 


■►^, 


jK 


i^ 


'    -^ 


-■V  ^ 


■K... 


